Let's Face It, Our Government is a Joke (Lobbying)

Mohamed · 03-03-2012, 07:03 PM

Interview of Abramoff on 60 minutes:

Jack Abramoff: The lobbyist's playbook - 60 Minutes - CBS News

Abramoff: When we would become friendly with an office and they were important to us, and the chief of staff was a competent person, I would say or my staff would say to him or her at some point, "You know, when you're done working on the Hill, we'd very much like you to consider coming to work for us." Now the moment I said that to them or any of our staff said that to 'em, that was it. We owned them. And what does that mean? Every request from our office, every request of our clients, everything that we want, they're gonna do. And not only that, they're gonna think of things we can't think of to do.

Stahl: How many congressional offices did you actually own?
Abramoff: We probably had very strong influence in 100 offices at the time

Stahl: Could you do the same thing today? I'm asking you whether you think the system's been
cleaned up?
Abramoff: Could do the same thing that I? Yeah. No, the system hasn't been cleaned up at all

I think the OCE, OGE, and other government administration groups should hire guys like Abramoff to poke holes in the system and report back, kind of like hackers for cyber-security. Of course the revolving door issue will probably never be addressed, and his recommendations will go unheard.

I'm taking this MGMT 430 class, business, gov't, and society... real snore.

Anyways the other day I'm trying to explain to this naive liberal cunt of a professor that public officials are the ones responsible for doing independent research or asking their science advisers to fact check the bullshit they hear on a daily basis from lobbyists... and they simply don't because it is easier to accept favors and make friends.

She is trying to say that lobbyists should only seek changes in the law for their clients if those changes are in the interest of the public good.

Not only that, but in cases where an interest group (ie: environmentalist) has far less influence than an industry and it's lobbyists, the lobbyists should inform public officials on "both sides of the story", because otherwise how would policy makers know what to do?

What a fucking joke. This is about as practical as having a defense attorney present damning evidence against his client because the prosecutor is incompetent and the judge and jury are too easily manipulated.

I was looking at this "Proposed Rules" document drawn up by the OGE, and none of it addresses systemic problems.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011...2011-23311.pdf

For example, because of the fundraiser loopholes, they want to put a restriction on who can invite a public official to a fundraiser (not an official lobbyists) In real life of course this is bullshit, because you can just have any random non-lobbyist from a different organization sign the invitation letter.

Abramoff talks about how you can pay for someone's meal if you are standing up, but not sitting down... it goes on and on, there are countless retarded policies that have no real-world effect.

How do you guys think this shit can be fixed? Can it be fixed?

I think everyone agrees corporations should have some influence on public policy, so we can't do away with lobbyists altogether, but do you think we should do what Abramoff says and restrict public officials from later working at lobbying firms which would halt the "revolving door"? or are there deeper problems than that?

I've seen this type of corruption in a lot of places. The UFC for example promises state athletic commission members with jobs if they cooperate and push the UFC agenda in their state... most of the time it's almost an unspoken agreement.

Thoughts?

WickedLou9 · 03-06-2012, 01:29 PM

The only way to restrict this is to restrict freedom of speech. Would you be willing to trade some of your 1st amendment rights to reduce big money influence on Washington?

Mohamed · 03-06-2012, 03:41 PM

what does stopping the revolving door have to do with the 1st amendment?

we don't have to paint with such a broad brush

WickedLou9 · 03-06-2012, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by Mohamed

what does stopping the revolving door have to do with the 1st amendment?

we don't have to paint with such a broad brush

Well how are you going to prevent one person from talking to another? A lobbyiest has every right to say what is on his mind to any member of congress he so chooses. The only way to prevent that sort of collaboration is to restrict free speech to some extent.

The Esteemed Gentleman · 03-06-2012, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Well how are you going to prevent one person from talking to another? A lobbyiest has every right to say what is on his mind to any member of congress he so chooses. The only way to prevent that sort of collaboration is to restrict free speech to some extent.

Well, perhaps you can't restrict people from speaking with members of Congress, but perhaps you could prevent them from being paid to do so? You can't restrict peoples' First Amendment rights, but Congress has the right to ban certain commercial activities via the Commerce Clause, so perhaps it could craft legislation that prohibited the profession of being paid to lobby. You can lobby on your own time, sure, but you cannot be paid to do so as part of your job.

Who knows, maybe there is some rule or case or logic somewhere that destroys that idea, but it's a thought.

WickedLou9 · 03-06-2012, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

Well, perhaps you can't restrict people from speaking with members of Congress, but perhaps you could prevent them from being paid to do so? You can't restrict peoples' First Amendment rights, but Congress has the right to ban certain commercial activities via the Commerce Clause, so perhaps it could craft legislation that prohibited the profession of being paid to lobby. You can lobby on your own time, sure, but you cannot be paid to do so as part of your job.

Who knows, maybe there is some rule or case or logic somewhere that destroys that idea, but it's a thought.

If companies have the right to free speech, and spending money is considered protected speech ( for now ) , I still think you have a steep hill to climb. What if it was a non-profit like the red cross asking for help or something. If you prevent them from directly asking, they will ask in a less direct way. The reason that the influence peddling business works is that members of congress need jobs after they leave government. So if you offer them VERY lucrative employment after they leave, it's a tough thing for them to turn down. So how do you stop that? Pay them more? Prevent them from holding jobs after they leave congress? You could ban them from lobbying for life I suppose and make the offense punishable by hanging.

Mohamed · 03-06-2012, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Well how are you going to prevent one person from talking to another? A lobbyiest has every right to say what is on his mind to any member of congress he so chooses. The only way to prevent that sort of collaboration is to restrict free speech to some extent.

I don't think you understand what I was talking about with the "revolving door"

basically what happens is: a lobbying firm makes contact with a congressional staffer and then influences that staffer by implying there is a job waiting for them if they cooperate

obviously it isn't so black and white, like I said it is almost an unspoken agreement

Abramoff is proposing (and I think it would be a good idea) that we place a restriction on public officials barring them from working as a lobbyist after their career serving the public is over, thus eliminating the influence lobbyists can have on them

shitty explanation but does that make sense? I don't see why 1st amendment would be an obstacle in implementing this

The Esteemed Gentleman · 03-07-2012, 01:26 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

If companies have the right to free speech, and spending money is considered protected speech ( for now ) , I still think you have a steep hill to climb. What if it was a non-profit like the red cross asking for help or something. If you prevent them from directly asking, they will ask in a less direct way.

My thoughts were more along the line of prohibiting positions where the employee's primary function is to lobby. So, for example, if the Red Cross has an opinion about some bill or issue in Congress, if the head of the Red Cross goes to meet with members of Congress dealing with the bill, that'd be okay because the director of the Red Cross isn't employed by the Red Cross to lobby; they are hired to run the Red Cross. The mere fact the director happens to speak with members of Congress every once in a while on a matter of public policy doesn't make them a lobbyist. But if the Red Cross hired someone (say, a former staffer) explicitly for the purpose of meeting with Congress on a regular basis to push Red Cross's agenda, well...perhaps we can prohibit such a position.

I agree a solution like this would be splitting hairs and what not, but what isn't these days?

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

The reason that the influence peddling business works is that members of congress need jobs after they leave government. So if you offer them VERY lucrative employment after they leave, it's a tough thing for them to turn down. So how do you stop that? Pay them more? Prevent them from holding jobs after they leave congress? You could ban them from lobbying for life I suppose and make the offense punishable by hanging.

I know in Massachusetts, legislators and staffers are prohibited from taking lobbying jobs in the state for 1 year post-state employment. I'm not sure why such a law would be prohibited on the federal level. I'm not sure the punishable by hanging part would fly though; even Clarence Thomas would probably find that violates the 8th Amendment.

WickedLou9 · 03-07-2012, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

My thoughts were more along the line of prohibiting positions where the employee's primary function is to lobby. So, for example, if the Red Cross has an opinion about some bill or issue in Congress, if the head of the Red Cross goes to meet with members of Congress dealing with the bill, that'd be okay because the director of the Red Cross isn't employed by the Red Cross to lobby; they are hired to run the Red Cross. The mere fact the director happens to speak with members of Congress every once in a while on a matter of public policy doesn't make them a lobbyist. But if the Red Cross hired someone (say, a former staffer) explicitly for the purpose of meeting with Congress on a regular basis to push Red Cross's agenda, well...perhaps we can prohibit such a position.

I agree a solution like this would be splitting hairs and what not, but what isn't these days?

I know in Massachusetts, legislators and staffers are prohibited from taking lobbying jobs in the state for 1 year post-state employment. I'm not sure why such a law would be prohibited on the federal level. I'm not sure the punishable by hanging part would fly though; even Clarence Thomas would probably find that violates the 8th Amendment.

I think the same law exists at the federal level.. but one year isn't all that long. People are more than willing to take a short break for a year and then go earn 500,000 a year lobbying their old buddies on Capitol Hill. Maybe 10 years would be more effective?

Then of course you also have the problem of Super Pacs and unlimited corporate donations. So you could have a company set up a Super pac to support a candidate and give them tens of millions of dollars. NIce.

Salty Dog · 03-07-2012, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by Mohamed

Abramoff is proposing (and I think it would be a good idea) that we place a restriction on public officials barring them from working as a lobbyist after their career serving the public is over, thus eliminating the influence lobbyists can have on them

Sounds like a step in the right direction.

Now, if we can rewrite gerrymandering (limiting the influence of political parties in changing the districts and instead, allow communities to have more control of it).