Published on March 8, 2006 By AsWayOpens In Politics
An amendment to ban gifts from lobbyist's has failed to pass the Senate.
It was such a surprise that Republicans were the ones to vote it down.

Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Mar 08, 2006
Actually, I believe what we need to do in response to lobbyists is to stop allowing public money to support lobbyists. The group "Americans for Prosperity" has proposed legislation to that effect, and I am a signatory to the pledge to support that legislation.

As for banning gifts from lobbyists, I hate to say it, but both political parties have their hands in THAT till.
on Mar 08, 2006
Could you please, please post links to what you are talking about when you write an article about it. Please?
on Mar 09, 2006
OK, I will look for links.
on Mar 09, 2006
No offense intended, but believe it or not some of us aren't omniscient about what goes on. I read a lot, but a lot of this stuff doesn't rise to the top with other things are going on. When you posted this yesterday I did a quick search and couldn't find much about it that gave any detail why Republicans opposed it.
on Mar 09, 2006
I'm not sure where my comment went to. But I commented saying, I took no offense. Sometimes I get to watch the votes while they are happening. I know I should link more and I just posted a blog with a link.
on Mar 09, 2006
Actually, I believe what we need to do in response to lobbyists is to stop allowing public money to support lobbyists.


What public money supports lobbyists?
on Mar 09, 2006
Link

Here's one example. I could find more, but I don't want to take the thread too far off topic.
on Mar 09, 2006
.
on Mar 09, 2006
Apparently my previous reply jacked the entire thread. My apologies. It basically said:

Yes, Gid, I agree. I don't want to hijack. But I do feel the need to point out that the majority of lobbyist don't represent "public" interest or take public money. So this is really a very small slice of the pie.

Also, I heard today that they've passed a rule to ban all meal gifts. (Sorry Baker, I have no link, just got the info word of mouth).
on Mar 10, 2006
"Also, I heard today that they've passed a rule to ban all meal gifts. (Sorry Baker, I have no link, just got the info word of mouth)."


I'm not fan of lobbyist influence (sorry), but I think this is going to be abused more than used. Every time a COngressman goes out to dinner, he's going to have to make sure he isn't sitting next to someone he might regret. Every Congressman's wife is going to have to go alone to all those charity fundraisers, because the Congressman will find himself in the paper the next day, accused of schmoozing.

I think we need more tools to stop influence peddling, but I don't think they need to be well-made enough to ensure they aren't just used to lynch people every time elections roll around.
on Mar 10, 2006
Every time a COngressman goes out to dinner, he's going to have to make sure he isn't sitting next to someone he might regret. Every Congressman's wife is going to have to go alone to all those charity fundraisers, because the Congressman will find himself in the paper the next day, accused of schmoozing.


I feel like there is a huge chasm between reality and what other people thinks happens. Charity fundraisers are not lobbying events and aren't paid for by lobbyists so wouldn't be effected.

Sure there are some lobbyists that are just "peddling influence" but for the most part, lobbyist spend their time educating congress about issues (they'd be better termed as "advocates"). For example, if the American Lung Association wants to get Congress to support something and they send a member of their own staff to talk it up--it's called advocacy. But if they pay someone who "advocates" for a living, it's lobbying.

Everyone has a picture of the well-to-do, powerful lobbyist in their mind when they have this conversation--it's simply not the case. Sure, there are some, I'm not going to deny that--but lobbying rules aren't going to deter them (I mean, Abramoff ignored all the rules that were in place).
on Mar 10, 2006
"I feel like there is a huge chasm between reality and what other people thinks happens. Charity fundraisers are not lobbying events and aren't paid for by lobbyists so wouldn't be effected."


You miss my point. Many charities both fundraise, AND lobby. I know they wouldn't be VIOLATING this, but they'd be accused of it. You are invited to speak at a dinner for some cause, and if you actually eat something on your plate you are then dragged through the briars. I think there is a huge chasm between what people think SHOULD happen and what DOES happen. This should be a way to make politics more clean, but in reality I think it will just be a way to bring up sham accusations and form endless investigative subcommittees.
on Mar 10, 2006
Many charities both fundraise, AND lobby.


No, actually they don't. It's against the law and the IRS code. If a 501(3)(c) lobbys they will lose their status as a charity.
on Mar 10, 2006
semantics. You don't consider it lobbying unless you are a professional lobbyist. I'm thinking they won't be that sticky on the definitions. They'll cry corruption just as quick when an 'advocate' buys a Senator lunch, bank on it.
on Mar 10, 2006
semantics. You don't consider it lobbying unless you are a professional lobbyist.


It's not semantics--the rules only applied to registered lobbyists. And if a nonprofit/charity is cited for lobbying, they lose their status. THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO LOBBY. And they are sticky on the definition--there are certain criteria that you have to meet to have to register as a lobbyist, and once you are registered you have certain rules that you must follow.

Like I said, there's is a chasm between what people think happens inside the beltway and what actually happens inside the beltway. I think I'll stick to what I know, rather than what people "think" might/should happen.
2 Pages1 2