Support NeoGAF

[besada]

The root. We don't want to ban lobbyists, just the ones we don't like. After all, were it not for lobbyists we'd still have a choice of which light bulb to purchase.

I don't care that much about lobbyists, other than revolving-door lobbyists. People have a right to join together in the petitioning of their government, and there's no clear way to distinguish lobbyists working for their own benefits and lobbyists working at the behest of a company.

That said, they shouldn't be invisible. Everyone should be able to see every lobbyist their representatives meet with, and the agenda discussed, at a minimum. I'd prefer requiring that all lobbyist visits be recorded. There is no right to petition the government in secret.

Of course, publicly funded elections would largely rob lobbyists of their biggest coercive tool -- donations.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Got that in an email.

The idea that you have to be currently employed to be offered a job at a different employer is ridiculous. I assume they do this to help them make excuses for poor training of new employees ("He worked at X beforehand, the transition should have been easy!"), or to scout out people employed by rivals and target them discriminately with job offers.

Plus it keeps the workforce stagnant (at best) and forces it to shrink over time, which is not good for an economy.

 

[Evlar]

Do lobbyists gain access by virtue of their charming personalities and excellent personal hygiene? If so, that's a surprise... I thought their access to people in power was a function of their position as representatives of interest groups that were willing to raise and spend money on campaigns (and softly worded promises of future job security outside government).

 

[PhoenixDark]

How does Obama's fundraising compare to his GOP rivals? Here's how they fared in the second quarter: (Source: The Atlantic)

Here's how the GOP candidates have fared:

•Mitt Romney: $18.25 million
•Ron Paul: $4.5 million
•Tim Pawlenty: $4.2 million
•Jon Huntsman: $4.1 million
•Herman Cain: $2.46 million
•Newt Gingrich: $2 million
•Rick Santorum: less than $2 million
Obama's $47 million beats their combined total by about $10 million

I saw the number early today and knew Drudge would highlight some spin about the impressive numbers. I had assumed it would have to do with the goal of $60 million which I had thought was just for Obama not him combined with the DNC, and lo and behold:

But again, to match his $750 million from the 2008 cycle, Obama would need to average $107 million for seven quarters. Obviously, it is possible that Obama can make up ground in the next few quarters. But to hit that hyped $1 billion number, Obama would need to raise a bit more than $142 million per quarter. As impressive as the $86 million figure is, it’s well below those markers.

http://www.nationalreview.com/campa...dline-obama-2012-fundraising-behind-2008-pace

Nowhere in the article does it remind viewers that Obama raised $33mil in 2007 during the same timeframe. This article is nothing more than desperate narrative building, and I expect to hear more of it.

Keep hope alive.

 

[Chichikov]

there's no clear way to distinguish lobbyists working for their own benefits and lobbyists working at the behest of a company.

We have laws on the books that require us to examine people's intent; we make judgment on people's inner most thoughts every day in courtrooms across the country.

Yet somehow it's impossible to draft a legislation that would limit corporate corruption of our government without preventing people from writing to their congressperson or whatever.

 

[mckmas8808]

Not meaningfully. Whatever money Republicans don't raise with their campaigns will be more than made up for by contributions to PACs and the like.

And DEMs will have those corporate PACs too. Lets not make that decision of GOP only thing.

 

[eznark]

We have laws on the books that require us to examine people's intent; we make judgment on people's inner most thoughts every day in courtrooms across the country.

Yet somehow it's impossible to draft a legislation that would limit corporate corruption of our government without preventing people from writing to their congressperson or whatever.

If we're going to pass it, lets pass it quickly before MADD gets the "breathalyzer-in-every-car" legislation through.

 

[empty vessel]

We have laws on the books that require us to examine people's intent; we make judgment on people's inner most thoughts every day in courtrooms across the country.

Yet somehow it's impossible to draft a legislation that would limit corporate corruption of our government without preventing people from writing to their congressperson or whatever.

Lobbyists already have to register and corporations already have to report their lobbying activities. To ban corporate lobbying all you have to do is pass a law that bans corporations from lobbying. They will be unable to hire lobbyists or spend money on lobbying activities.

Under this arrangement (in conjunction with campaign finance reform), corporations can once again be subservient to Congress and, by extension, subservient to "we the people" (popular sovereignty!). When Congress wants corporate input on the potential impact of considered legislation, it can hold a public hearing and invite corporate representatives to come and share their opinions in the light of fucking day.

 

[besada]

We have laws on the books that require us to examine people's intent; we make judgment on people's inner most thoughts every day in courtrooms across the country.

Yet somehow it's impossible to draft a legislation that would limit corporate corruption of our government without preventing people from writing to their congressperson or whatever.

Yeah, and they mostly don't work and take a lot of time. How do you tell the difference between people who hate CFLs and people who are being paid to say they hate CFLs? (Assuming they're willing to lie about their intent, which they are.)

The problem isn't lobbying, it's bribery disguised as lobbying. It's the money, not the lobbying. Remove the money from the equation, and the lobbying becomes ineffectual.

 

[Byakuya769]

Yeah, and they mostly don't work and take a lot of time. How do you tell the difference between people who hate CFLs and people who are being paid to say they hate CFLs? (Assuming they're willing to lie about their intent, which they are.)

The problem isn't lobbying, it's bribery disguised as lobbying. It's the money, not the lobbying. Remove the money from the equation, and the lobbying becomes ineffectual.

Yep, also the professional revolving door of elected officials, appointed officials and lobbyist is a huge problem as well. How can we expect good governance when there are strong incentives to act in a way that lands you an incredible salary at a private organization after your stint in government?

 

[Stinkles]

Lobbyists already have to register and corporations already have to report their lobbying activities. To ban corporate lobbying all you have to do is pass a law that bans corporations from lobbying. They will be unable to hire lobbyists or spend money on lobbying activities.

Under this arrangement (in conjunction with campaign finance reform), corporations can once again be subservient to Congress and, by extension, subservient to "we the people" (popular sovereignty!). When Congress wants corporate input on the potential impact of considered legislation, it can hold a public hearing and invite corporate representatives to come and share their opinions in the light of fucking day.

It's the tipping point of the balance between Capitalism and Democracy/ My hardly-unique opinion is that the Supremem Court changed that balance by 5-4 with the Citizen's United ruling.

 

[empty vessel]

Yeah, and they mostly don't work and take a lot of time. How do you tell the difference between people who hate CFLs and people who are being paid to say they hate CFLs? (Assuming they're willing to lie about their intent, which they are.)

The problem isn't lobbying, it's bribery disguised as lobbying. It's the money, not the lobbying. Remove the money from the equation, and the lobbying becomes ineffectual.

I don't really understand why you think identifying who is a corporate agent and who is not is difficult. If corporations are prohibited from lobbying, they won't be able to hire lobbyists or pay expenses relating to lobbying. Who lobbies for a corporation without being paid for it? And, as I said, if somebody genuinely wants to do that on their own time and own dime as an individual citizen, more power to them. In other words, the prohibition runs against the corporation, not people.

If the objection is just that corporations will lobby illegally, that would seem to be an argument in favor of repealing laws prohibiting homicide just as much as an argument against enacting laws prohibiting corporate lobbying.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Lobbyists already have to register and corporations already have to report their lobbying activities. To ban corporate lobbying all you have to do is pass a law that bans corporations from lobbying. They will be unable to hire lobbyists or spend money on lobbying activities.

Under this arrangement (in conjunction with campaign finance reform), corporations can once again be subservient to Congress and, by extension, subservient to "we the people" (popular sovereignty!). When Congress wants corporate input on the potential impact of considered legislation, it can hold a public hearing and invite corporate representatives to come and share their opinions in the light of fucking day.

Banning lobbyists...? That seems like a violation of free speech

 

[Chichikov]

If we're going to pass it, lets pass it quickly before MADD gets the "breathalyzer-in-every-car" legislation through.

What does it have to do with anything?
Can you mount any serious criticism against such legislation without the slippery slope argument?

Cause you know, once we start accepting slippery slope arguments, where does it stop?

Yeah, and they mostly don't work and take a lot of time. How do you tell the difference between people who hate CFLs and people who are being paid to say they hate CFLs? (Assuming they're willing to lie about their intent, which they are.)

The problem isn't lobbying, it's bribery disguised as lobbying. It's the money, not the lobbying. Remove the money from the equation, and the lobbying becomes ineffectual.

I agree that going after the money in our political system is the smart way to approach that issue, I even said that much a couple of posts ago.
But I refuse to accept that our legal system, a system that get to decide about life and fucking death cannot deal with lobbyists, because it's too hard or something.

 

[Manmademan]

Yeah, and they mostly don't work and take a lot of time. How do you tell the difference between people who hate CFLs and people who are being paid to say they hate CFLs? (Assuming they're willing to lie about their intent, which they are.)

The problem isn't lobbying, it's bribery disguised as lobbying. It's the money, not the lobbying. Remove the money from the equation, and the lobbying becomes ineffectual.

this is pretty much what I was getting at. I have no problem with individuals or corporations petitioning senators and representatives to hear them out. That's a basic right.

What's NOT right is where we currently are, which is basically businesses throwing wads of money at elected representatives to influence behavior. the line between what is referred to as "lobbying" and what's "bribery" is so thin it may as well be academic.

Keep the ability to speak to representatives, remove the ability to legally use cash to influence votes.

I agree that going after the money in our political system is the smart way to approach that issue, I even said that much a couple of posts ago.
But I refuse to accept that our legal system, a system that get to decide about life and fucking death cannot deal with lobbyists, because it's too hard or something.

it's not that it's "too hard", its the reality that privately financed elections make it impossible to compete if your opponent outspends you. Lobbyists know this (and it's not always corporations, sometimes it's religious interest groups, etc) and frequently take a stance of "if you don't want to take $1 million to support our position, I'm sure your opponent will."

this will always be a problem without true financial reform, but most of congress has no incentive to rock the boat.

 

[mckmas8808]

Amtrak Expects 30 Million Riders - All-time Record
July 13, 2011
By: George Dooley

Amtrak is projecting that for the first time ever its annual ridership will exceed 30 million passengers and in the process set a new all-time record when the current fiscal year ends Sept. 30.


“We are having a very strong year because people around the country are choosing the convenience, efficiency and hassle-free environment of Amtrak to meet their travel needs,” said President and CEO Joe Boardman. “Amtrak has wisely invested the federal funding we have received to improve infrastructure and equipment. Continued investment in Amtrak and passenger rail will support the further growth of this increasingly vital transportation option."

Amtrak is basing its projection of more than 30 million passengers on strong June ridership numbers and expected ticket sales for July, August and September. June 2011 was the best June on record with more than 2.6 million passengers for the month and marked 20 consecutive months of year-over-year ridership growth, a streak that began in November 2009.

This strong performance, Amtrak said, is part of a long-term trend that has seen Amtrak set annual ridership records in seven of the last eight fiscal years, including more than 28.7 million passengers in FY 2010.

Comparing the first nine months of FY 2011 (October – June) to the same time period in FY 2010, national Amtrak ridership is up 6.4 percent so far this fiscal year and all three major business lines are showing gains: the Northeast Corridor up 5.6 percent, state-supported and other short distance corridors up 7.8 percent, and long-distance trains up 3.9 percent.

Factors contributing to the continuing success of Amtrak include high gasoline prices, continued growth in business travel on the high-speed Acela Express trains with free Wi-Fi service, the increased appeal and popularity of rail travel and effective marketing campaigns.

Celebrating 40 years of dedicated service as America’s Railroad, Amtrak is the nation’s intercity passenger rail provider and its only high-speed rail operator. A record 28.7 million passengers traveled on Amtrak in FY 2010 on more than 300 daily trains – at speeds up to 150 mph (241 kph) – that connect 46 states, the District of Columbia and three Canadian Provinces
​

#################


High gas prices, continued busniess traveling, etc........yeah sounds like a great time to cut rail funds huh?

F*#! what wrong with this country? Looks like people in America want more trains, yet all I keep hearing is governors and some congressman trying to cut the rail funds.

 

[empty vessel]

this is pretty much what I was getting at. I have no problem with individuals or corporations petitioning senators and representatives to hear them out. That's a basic right.

Corporations don't have rights (except by historical accident and anti-democratic ideological fiat).

 

[Manmademan]

Corporations don't have rights (except by historical accident and anti-democratic ideological fiat).

Look- I don't like what corporations tend to do any more than you do, but realistically a corporation shouldn't be treated any differently than any other gathering of people. They should be able to appoint a person to represent their interests just as say...your local church, or school district might- but they shouldn't be able to influence a senator any more than the average citizen.

 

[eznark]

this will always be a problem without true financial reform, but most of congress has no incentive to rock the boat.

What does true financial reform mean? How does a purely "publicly" financed campaign work? What is no longer allowed? How does it affect unaffiliated but interested parties?

 

[demon]

Amtrak Expects 30 Million Riders - All-time RecordHigh gas prices, continued busniess traveling, etc........yeah sounds like a great time to cut rail funds huh?

---

F*#! what wrong with this country? Looks like people in America want more trains, yet all I keep hearing is governors and some congressman trying to cut the rail funds.

bu-bu-but studies show people don't want trains!

I think people in this country will start to realize how much they want high-speed trains and better local public transit once gas becomes, literally, prohibitively expensive. And it will happen.

 

[Manmademan]

What does true financial reform mean? How does a purely "publicly" financed campaign work? What is no longer allowed? How does it affect unaffiliated but interested parties?

The details of this are up for debate, but anything which is better than the free for all and outright bribery we have now would be an improvement.

or do you disagree?

 

[besada]

I don't really understand why you think identifying who is a corporate agent and who is not is difficult. If corporations are prohibited from lobbying, they won't be able to hire lobbyists or pay expenses relating to lobbying. Who lobbies for a corporation without being paid for it? And, as I said, if somebody genuinely wants to do that on their own time and own dime as an individual citizen, more power to them. In other words, the prohibition runs against the corporation, not people.

Because corporations have shown repeatedly that they can muster large astroturf groups without actually directly paying them. The NRA has one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington, and yet they don't have to pay their primary lobbying force. I don't think it will achieve what you want it to achieve, whereas removing money from the equation will.

I don't have a big problem with making it illegal for corporations to lobby, I just don't think it will work.

 

[eznark]

bu-bu-but studies show people don't want trains!

I think people in this country will start to realize how much they want high-speed trains and better local public transit once gas becomes, literally, prohibitively expensive. And it will happen.

Amtrak's last record year was 2010 and they had operating losses of $1.1 billion.

The details of this are up for debate, but anything which is better than the free for all and outright bribery we have now would be an improvement.

or do you disagree?

I disagree strongly. I think things could always be worse.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Amtrak's last record year was 2010 and they had operating losses of $1.1 billion.

Why is it always assumed that such things should generate profit? It's the same thing with the Post Office. Yes, it's losing money. The question should be, is it worth the money we're spending on it, and I think in both instances the answer is definitively yes.

 

[eznark]

Why is it always assumed that such things should generate profit? It's the same thing with the Post Office. Yes, it's losing money. The question should be, is it worth the money we're spending on it, and I think in both instances the answer is definitively yes.

Couldn't agree more, the (non-retarded) argument against Amtrak isn't that no one rides it, it's that it's a money pit.

 

[Evlar]

Why is it always assumed that such things should generate profit? It's the same thing with the Post Office. Yes, it's losing money. The question should be, is it worth the money we're spending on it, and I think in both instances the answer is definitively yes.

The fact that the post office loses money, despite perfectly functional private competition, is a demonstration that the people using the post office (which is largely private firms and individuals) are getting a bargain in mail delivery.

 

[Byakuya769]

Couldn't agree more, the (non-retarded) argument against Amtrak isn't that no one rides it, it's that it's a money pit.

Do our highways make money? Cause I'm getting tired of paying for them.

 

[eznark]

Do our highways make money? Cause I'm getting tired of paying for them.

Now we're talking!

 

[besada]

Now we're talking!

This conversation always ends up with you moving.

 

[gcubed]

What does true financial reform mean? How does a purely "publicly" financed campaign work? What is no longer allowed? How does it affect unaffiliated but interested parties?

i can throw a few ideas out there. Campaign time limits (only allowed to campaign x amount of months in the year of an election, this includes advertisements, etc), you establish a rule for a party to become publicly funded (i dont know what, x amount of votes in the previous election, petitions, etc) then the parties are all allowed to campaign during the same time frame using the same amount of money and the same resources.

 

[eznark]

This conversation always ends up with you moving.

So instead of going to the obvious dead end discussion of a privately funded infrastructure route, let's switch it up a bit.

Revive the as-originally-conceived Highway Trust Fund.

 

[Chichikov]

Look- I don't like what corporations tend to do any more than you do, but realistically a corporation shouldn't be treated any differently than any other gathering of people.

Corporations already enjoy many rights and benefits that natural people, or even a gathering of natural people don't have.

 

[besada]

So instead of going to the obvious dead end discussion of a privately funded infrastructure route, let's switch it up a bit.

Revive the as-originally-conceived Highway Trust Fund.

To get it really functional again we'd have to raise federal gas taxes. Can I assume that's not what you like about it? Or is it the mass transit additions?

 

[mckmas8808]

The fact that the post office loses money, despite perfectly functional private competition, is a demonstration that the people using the post office (which is largely private firms and individuals) are getting a bargain in mail delivery.

Never thought of it that way.

 

[eznark]

To get it really functional again we'd have to raise federal gas taxes. Can I assume that's not what you like about it? Or is it the mass transit additions?

I don't necessarily like anything about it, but it's something I don't remember talking about, which is rare.

I'd go to tolls before increased gas taxes though.

The problem isn't revenue (sounds familiar!!) it was lack of oversight on what the funds were spent on. Instead of the federal highway system the Trust was raided for local projects.

 

[speculawyer]

Damn Romney is acting way too sane.

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's campaign said Tuesday that he will not sign a conservative Iowa Christian group's far-reaching pledge opposing gay marriage, making him the first Republican presidential candidate to reject it.

Two of Romney's rivals for the Republican nomination, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, have signed the The Family Leader's 14-point pledge, which calls on the candidates to denounce same-sex marriage rights, pornography, same-sex military accommodations and forms of Islamic law.

http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-romney-rejects-gay-marriage-pledge-230845356.html

Hopefully Bachmann or Perry knocks him down.

 

[reilo]

Damn Romney is acting way too sane.


http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-romney-rejects-gay-marriage-pledge-230845356.html

Hopefully Bachmann or Perry knocks him down.

same-sex military accommodations and forms of Islamic law.

Ah, the hypocrisy.

 

[eznark]

Damn Romney is acting way too sane.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's campaign said Tuesday that he will not sign a conservative Iowa Christian group's far-reaching pledge opposing gay marriage, making him the first Republican presidential candidate to reject it.



http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-romney-rejects-gay-marriage-pledge-230845356.html

Hopefully Bachmann or Perry knocks him down.

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.c...y-leader-pledge-gives-republicans-a-bad-name/

Republican presidential candidate Gary Johnson thinks the pledge that an Iowa Christian conservative group is circulating is offensive because it condemn gays, single parents, divorcees, Muslims, women who choose to have abortions “and everyone else who doesn’t fit in a Norman Rockwell painting.”


HEY!

 

[Escape Goat]

Damn Romney is acting way too sane.


http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-romney-rejects-gay-marriage-pledge-230845356.html

Hopefully Bachmann or Perry knocks him down.

No GOP President is going to push for full equality. This is a ploy to set himself apart without actually endorsing anything.

 

[PantherLotus]

Wait hold up just a second here. I thought I just saw something about the Post Office being 100% funded by postage -- somewhat implying that they're not losing money. What gives?

 

[Evlar]

Ah, the hypocrisy.

What's the use of founding your principles of justice on a religious book if you don't bother to clarify which religious book?

 

[speculawyer]

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.c...y-leader-pledge-gives-republicans-a-bad-name/

Republican presidential candidate Gary Johnson thinks the pledge that an Iowa Christian conservative group is circulating is offensive because it condemn gays, single parents, divorcees, Muslims, women who choose to have abortions “and everyone else who doesn’t fit in a Norman Rockwell painting.”


HEY!

Of course Gary Johnson is as popular in the GOP as syphilis.

 

[besada]

I don't necessarily like anything about it, but it's something I don't remember talking about, which is rare.

I'd go to tolls before increased gas taxes though.

The problem isn't revenue (sounds familiar!!) it was lack of oversight on what the funds were spent on. Instead of the federal highway system the Trust was raided for local projects.

Well, unsurprisingly, I'd be all in favor of stricter federal regulations regarding who gets to tap it. The problem currently is that it's not self-renewing. We had to prime the pump on it back in 2008 because it was tapped out. If I had my druthers, I'd add on a fee to private toll road owners, too. A portion of their take right into the HTF's coffers seems fair, considering we're paying for access to their toll roads. Without the federally funded highway systems they're connected to, they can't make money.

 

[eznark]

Of course Gary Johnson is as popular in the GOP as syphilis.

but he is still a candidate. /pouts

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Why is it always assumed that such things should generate profit? It's the same thing with the Post Office. Yes, it's losing money. The question should be, is it worth the money we're spending on it, and I think in both instances the answer is definitively yes.

I'm here to disagree with you. I think the question should be (especially for something like the Post Office which everyone needs and uses) why can't they generate a profit- or at least come out even?

 

[Evlar]

Wait hold up just a second here. I thought I just saw something about the Post Office being 100% funded by postage -- somewhat implying that they're not losing money. What gives?

It was in the red last year by about $8.5 billion. That budget shortfall was filled by loans from the Federal Government.

 

[Escape Goat]

I'm here to disagree with you. I think the question should be (especially for something like the Post Office which everyone needs and uses) why can't they generate a profit- or at least come out even?

Its a government agency.

If only there was a way to make profit in package and mail delivery...

Oh...

 

[besada]

but he is still a candidate. /pouts

I obviously don't agree with most of his politics, but he is more interesting than most of the other candidates. And certainly more forthright.

 

[empty vessel]

Look- I don't like what corporations tend to do any more than you do, but realistically a corporation shouldn't be treated any differently than any other gathering of people. They should be able to appoint a person to represent their interests just as say...your local church, or school district might- but they shouldn't be able to influence a senator any more than the average citizen.

I don't know why you think a corporation is no different from any other gathering of people, because it is. It is endowed with governmental power granting it limited liability and perpetual existence, among other powers that individual citizens lack. The flow of power runs as follows:

We the people (citizens)
|
|
v
Government
|
|
v
Corporation

 

[gcubed]

Its a government agency.

If only there was a way to make profit in package and mail delivery...



Oh...

no reason to make a profit, just break even.