The efforts of Congressional members of both houses to make laws that skirt basic constitutional freedoms never ends . Rep AOC(D NY ) ,Sen Ted Cruz(R TX) ,Sen Brian Schatz (D Hawaii), and Representative Chip Roy (R Tx) are working together to cobble the next version of getting around the 1st amendment . In the latest version of this concept ,they want to prohibit former members of the Legislative branch from working as lobbyists after they retire.

Sound good ? Maybe . Except there is one big problem with it ;it is unconstitutional .

The right to petition the government is written into the 1st amendment ;and it doesn't matter if it is an individual ,or a group or a corporation ,or a former member of Congress . EVERYONE has the right . That includes those who are crusaders for a cause ;and those who do it for a pay check.

Thornton v. U.S. Term Limits ,SCOTUS ruled that the Constitution,and only the Constitution sets the requirements for becoming a member of the Legislature . Congress cannot change those terms without an amendment .

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/31/72855...-from-lobbying

Politics makes strange bedfellows, doesn't it? I don't see these two getting a lot of support for their idea but at least the two opposites of politics can find a civil agreement between them and is that a bad thing? Scared the heck out of me when I heard they were tweeting this stuff.

Money in politics is a problem and the dollar value is said to be measured in BILLIONS and that's even scarier.

Bipartisanship to craft an unconstitutional law ? I see no 'at least ' in that at all. Money in politics and so called revolving doors cannot be solved by restricting someone's rights .Shame on Ted Cruz . He should know better .

Lobbyist are people too! _Snicker-

yes they are . As I said in the opener ; the first amendment is valid for crusaders for a cause ,as well as for people getting paid to speak for others .There is no constitutional restriction for former members of the government preventing them from getting paid as a lobbyist anymore than there is one for former members of government making a fortune on the speaking circuit .Both are cashing in on their influence .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

There is no constitutional restriction for former members of the government preventing them from getting paid as a lobbyist

---

There should be.

There should be many restrictions on many things

More restrictions require more government and results in fewer freedoms.

sometimes you can have too much freedom, basic laws require restriction of freedom, so you cannot roam where ever you want to, kill indiscriminately and steal. But do lobbieists steal freedoms from others, etc

Quote:

---

sometimes you can have too much freedom, basic laws require restriction of freedom, so you cannot roam where ever you want to, kill indiscriminately and steal. But do lobbieists steal freedoms from others, etc.

---

That is certainly true. There can be no absolute freedom, but when government is made smaller, then the influence of lobbyists becomes smaller as well. I can tell that, in America, we have an overly large government which is the source of the loss of freedom we are experiencing.

Yes perhaps you need less Representatives, more Senators to even up the balance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Yes perhaps you need less Representatives, more Senators to even up the balance

---

If you had senators to even the balance, the result would be tiny Utah having the same voting power as mighty California. But it's a good discussion.

Less representatives would also NOT even the balance. The House is already balanced since Reps are elected by population.

The world of the founders was a different world than today. We have already seen the disaster (imo) created by the system for electing the US president. It accomplished exactly what Hamilton designed it to avoid.

If I were King, I would make both the Senate and House term limited. Each electee gets one single term of 6 years. And eliminate the Electoral College. One immediate problem for president may be the time zone differences. The further West, the possible less impact the voter has because the frontrunner may be so far ahead, the West Coast votes won't count.

I'm sure there are better ideas out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

That is certainly true. There can be no absolute freedom, but when government is made smaller, then the influence of lobbyists becomes smaller as well. I can tell that, in America, we have an overly large government which is the source of the loss of freedom we are experiencing.

---

As populations grow the government shrinking means the general welfare of that populations shrinks as well. No they wont cut the senators or representatives, just the guys who test your water and inspect your food, and air quality. The influence of those lobbyist doesn't shrink, they still will influence the congress to make rules that allow them to make more money even if that means you drink contaminated mud and breathe poison, and eat dirty food from dirty processing plants.

Of course you keep your freedom to move and holler about the government you seek to shrink not protecting your rights, because you will have none, because you will have no influence over your own elected officials because you are broke. Not like you have any influence now.

I agree the lobbyists become MORE powerful the smaller the government. And remember, in general, lobbyists represent corporations who exist for the primary purpose of making profits. Hey, it's expensive to clean up that dirty water and dirty air. Eats into the profits. Just look at Flint, Michigan.

Quote:

---

Just look at Flint, Michigan.

---

I was under the impression that the problem in Flint was largely the result of decades of inaction by the municipal government of Flint.

The Flint problem was brought on by the state switching water sources to save money and the new source was fithy so contaminated the existing system. Even after they switched back they still must replace the entire old system. Flint is not the only American town with such a problem just the most public.

Quote:

---

The Flint problem was brought on by the state switching water sources to save money and the new source was fithy so contaminated the existing system.

---

The Flint system had not been maintained for decades, and so they started buying their water from Detroit years ago. Detroit, amazingly enough, treated their water and it worked fine in the old lead-contaminated pipes in Flint. When they started using their own water system's water, they did not treat it, so the lead began to leach into the water. It was a case of Flint not taking care of it's own business for decades, and then wanting to blame everyone else. It certainly had nothing to do with corporate greed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I was under the impression that the problem in Flint was largely the result of decades of inaction by the municipal government of Flint.

---

The nation wide exposure of the crisis was in 2014. By 2017 the officials said the water was fine. It wasn't. Now they're predicting sometime this year to have the system completed. The Governor started the mess trying to save money. It went downhill from there. Gov. Snyder is a Republican but Democrat officials were also involved. The pols were not entirely to blame but they weren't much help in fixing the problem.

The real blame in my opinion and the opinion of others is GM. Flint is the birthplace of General Motors over 100 years ago, and was the main employer of Flint since pre-WW2. GM started to bail with sweetheart deals from gov to move just outside of Flint for tax considerations. As you say, it was a long process and with all the law suits is impossible to review here.

GM was not responsible for maintaining the water system. That was up to the municipal government of Flint which failed miserably.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

GM was not responsible for maintaining the water system. That was up to the municipal government of Flint which failed miserably.

---

Actually it wasn't the municipal government, it was the state government. But way before that GM bailed and the tax money was no longer available to maintain the water system.

The state of Michigan's government was responsible for the maintenance of Flint's water system for the past several decades??? You're really trying to say that??

Not even close. The counties and city counsils were taken over by a state appointed manager and over ruled the local governments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financ...cy_in_Michigan

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/23/u...-managers.html

https://www.thenation.com/article/sc...ency-managers/

Quote:

---

Not even close. The counties and city counsils were taken over by a state appointed manager and over ruled the local governments.

---

You're talking about what happened after the ineptitude of both Detroit and Flint led to this fiasco. I'm talking about the decades that occurred prior to 2014. Both cities were poorly led and losing population and tax base. They did not bother to upgrade and properly maintain their water systems. When Flint had to depend upon its own resources and not Detroit's, the whole lead problem then began to surface. What would be wrong with expecting BOTH of those cities to take care of their own water systems, and if they don't, to hold the democrat politicians in charge in both places responsible for their failures to do so? Oh wait. I just figured it out. "Democrat politicians". That's the key. We certainly can't blame liberal democrats, so we'll just blame GM instead.

Why blame the dems since their policy was not to blame for poisoning Flint? Why not blame the ever changing economic world we live in that has plants closing and jobs overseas that use to be ours. Blame those rich guys who you gave those tax cuts to every time a repub wins the WH. Blame those rich guys who close old plants and build new ones abroad using the tax code you wrote for them. Why blame the cities who lose all that revenue and tax base when people lose their jobs.

Blame the gays and blacks, because they just won't do as they are told, or know how good they got it or what you say their place should be. Lazy immoral ungrateful b@stards. Blame the Hispanics who run here like roaches and breed like mice, they run from a sinking ship. They're everywhere. Instead of looking for someone to blame, try the mirror, and those silly rules you insist people live by, and castrate those that don't. Why not? You have the straight pipeline to God and you swear it's not just the right way, but the only way.

I got ya!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

You have the straight pipeline to God and you swear it's not just the right way, but the only way.

---

In a nutshell..................perfect!

Quote:

---

Why blame the dems since their policy was not to blame for poisoning Flint?

---

Because they were in charge, and therefore responsible. Not real complicated.

Quote:

---

Blame the gays and blacks, because they just won't do as they are told, or know how good they got it or what you say their place should be. Lazy immoral ungrateful b@stards. Blame the Hispanics who run here like roaches and breed like mice, they run from a sinking ship. They're everywhere. Instead of looking for someone to blame, try the mirror, and those silly rules you insist people live by, and castrate those that don't. Why not? You have the straight pipeline to God and you swear it's not just the right way, but the only way.

---

Have you been drinking??? You run out of truth, so you go into fantasy gear.

The way that the term Lobbyists is being used is both unfair and inaccurate.

Lobbying is an essential part of delivering a properly functioning democracy, not a threat to it.

All they do really is petitioning the government under their first amendment guaranteed right to go to the government when government might be doing something that affects them directly or indirectly.Lobbyists perform a vital, indispensable function, which is providing information and expertise to people in government who don't have either ,and need both in order to make the right decisions.

They also represent their clients who also employ real people with real jobs. And if legislation is going to adversely affect those companies, then under our system of government, those folks ought to have a voice in government.

But forget those so called evil corporations .The AOC -Cruz plan would prevent former member of the Legislature to advocate for such non-profit organizations as the Boys and Girls Scouts ,the American Cancer Society(which spends $ millions lobbying Congress) ,the teacher's unions ,and Planned Parenthood among many other advocacy groups organized as corporations . They could not work for states and local governments as lobbyists getting money for state and local projects .

To the point about the Leviathan state ;greater regulations has coincided with a sharp increase in the need for lobbying by professionals with government relations expertise representing clients facing oversight and investigations.Today, lobbying is more necessary, widespread, and complicated than ever before. It is also more open, more professional, subject to more rules, and practiced with a greater degree of legal compliance. There are nearly 36,000 lobbyist working just in Washington ;and the vast majority would never contemplate breaking lobbying restrictions ,breaking the law or codes of ethics ;and have little tolerance for those that do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Because they were in charge, and therefore responsible. Not real complicated. Have you been drinking??? You run out of truth, so you go into fantasy gear.

---

Repubs were in charge of poisoning entire communities to save a million bucks. Maybe you should read up on that before you accuse someone of drinking.

Nice spin, Tom, I respect your efforts to put lipstick on a pig and calling it gorgeous. So does the MO'MONEY crowd!

I could name many advocacy groups you support that hire lobbyists . EVERYONE has a right to be heard individually ,and collectively as an interest group organized as a corporation . You cannot be in business in this country and not have someone advocating for you in Washington. jlisenbe is correct . Just the size of the national government dictates that . btw ,that Michigan water issue is off topic except for the fact that there is probably some lobbyist pleading Flynt's case in Washington.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

EVERYONE has a right to be heard individually ,and collectively as an interest group organized as a corporation .

---

I agree everyone has a right to be heard. What about money? Should congressmen be allowed to accept money from the lobbyists to promote their pet project? What about when the money is disguised as contributions to a non-profit? Is spending speech?

Bribery is bribery by any other name.

Quote:

---

Repubs were in charge of poisoning entire communities to save a million bucks.

---

The topic was Flint. It's amazing that you are so deeply into partisan politics that you cannot bring yourself to admit that those dems who were in charge should be held responsible.

If you have other places where repubs were in charge and this happened, put them out for discussion.

Naw you don't get to lay selective blame where you gain advantage as that's a false narrative. Clearly the actions of a repub governor in bypassing the local authority was the catalyst for the Flint disaster, and the courts have agreed. Look it up. It's that simple. We haven't even discussed the big elephant in the room of repub controlled states bringing unconstitutional laws to their states in preparation for Roe v Wade being overturned.

Quote:

---

Naw you don't get to lay selective blame where you gain advantage as that's a false narrative. Clearly the actions of a repub governor in bypassing the local authority was the catalyst for the Flint disaster,

---

Complete nonsense. It was the negligence of dozens of elected democrats throughout the decades leading up to this that caused the problem. Those old lead contaminated pipes in Flint weren't put in, and left in, by the repub gov. The devastating loss of population and tax base in both Flint and Detroit were not caused by repubs. The foolishness of not treating the new source of water was not brought on by him, either. If Detroit and Flint had been properly led for the decades leading up to this disaster, he would never have had to intervene to begin with. Your partisanship is really a sad sight to behold.

Quote:

---

Repubs were in charge of poisoning entire communities to save a million bucks.

---

Still waiting to hear where this happened.

The good news is you don't have to take my word since it's a matter of public record. Why don't you get and report YOUR findings instead of taking pot shots at mine. A tactic you use when you have NOTHING but bias and prejudice. So see you don't have to wait for my "spin", you just have to do your own homework. The good news for me is I have learned not to hold my breath while you get facts.

What part of those old pipes weren't contaminated until repubs changed the water source to contaminated water is it you don't get?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

What part of those old pipes weren't contaminated until repubs changed the water source to contaminated water is it you don't get?

---

You took the words right out of my mouth, Tal! In 2014, the city switched from Detroit's water system (Detroit River and Lake Huron) to the Flint River, setting the stage for the city's water crisis. There was a complete lack of leadership by Michigan government and regulatory leaders whose actions and inactions caused this disaster. The accountability lies with Governor Rick Snyder and his executive branch staff as well as the leadership and staff of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

Here's the timeline of events:
https://apnews.com/1176657a4b0d468c8f35ddbb07f12bec

Quote:

---

What part of those old pipes weren't contaminated until repubs changed the water source to contaminated water is it you don't get?

---

If you would bother to read Wondergirl's link, you would find that it was the Flint government who changed the water source, and it was not water that was contaminated. It was not properly treated to resist lead contamination from the million year old pipes Flint had not bothered to maintain, but it was not at all contaminated UNTIL it got into Flint's pipe system. Even Detroit, hardly a model for efficient government, had treated their water to resist lead.

This is from Wondergirl's link.

April 2014: In an effort to save money, Flint begins drawing water from the Flint River for its 100,000 residents, instead of relying on water from Detroit. The move is considered temporary while the city waits to connect to a new regional water system. Residents immediately complain about the smell, taste and appearance of the water, and raise health concerns, reporting rashes, hair loss and other problems.

January 2015: Detroit offers to reconnect Flint to its water system, but Flint leaders insist the water is safe.

Sept. 24, 2015: A group of doctors urges Flint to stop using the Flint River for water after finding high levels of lead in the blood of children. State regulators insist the water is safe.

Sept. 29, 2015: Gov. Rick Snyder pledges to take action in response to the lead levels — the first acknowledgment by the state that lead is a problem.

October 2015: Snyder announces that the state will spend $1 million to buy water filters and test water in Flint public schools, and days later calls for Flint to go back to using water from Detroit’s system.

So what am I missing here? How is it that Snyder is somehow responsible for this mess when he got involved AFTER Flint had messed the entire deal up? And how could he be responsible for decades of neglect and mismanagement by the Flint government?

Note the demise of Flint under the sterling leadership of democrat government.

1950 163,143 7.7%
1960 196,940 20.7%
1970 193,317 −1.8%
1980 159,611 −17.4%
1990 140,761 −11.8%
2000 124,943 −11.2%
2010 102,434 −18.0%

Population is currently estimated at 96,000. And the same thing has happened in Detroit.

There was no problem until the water-source switch. Why was it done?

Also, Flint River water is very corrosive to lead, and causing lead contamination in homes. This is creating a public health threat in some Flint homes that have lead pipe or lead solder. Unfortunately, adding orthophosphate corrosion inhibitor to the Flint River water, does not solve the lead problem (at least based on the first two weeks of testing).

flintwaterstudy.org/2015/09/flint-rivers-water-is-very-corrosive-to-lead-and-causing-l…

The accountability lies with Governor Rick Snyder and his executive branch staff as well as the leadership and staff of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

I guess you skipped the part about the state appointed (By Gov. Snyder) emergency managers who approved and oversaw this money saving idea.

Mid-March. 2016: State officials testify before Congress, including Snyder and the state-appointed emergency manager who oversaw Flint when the water source was switched to the river.

March 23, 2016: A governor-appointed panel concludes that the state of Michigan is “fundamentally accountable” for the crisis because of decisions made by environmental regulators.

April 20, 2016: Two state officials and a local official are charged with evidence tampering and other crimes in the Michigan attorney general’s investigation — the first to be levied in the probe.

Cherry picking facts?

Quote:

---

There was no problem until the water-source switch. Why was it done?

---

According to your link, which you evidently have not read, it was done by Flint to save money.

Quote:

---

The accountability lies with Governor Rick Snyder and his executive branch staff as well as the leadership and staff of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

---

Not according to your link. And for that matter, if Flint wanted to change to another source of water, don't you think their elected officials had some sort of obligation to make sure that water would be safe BEFORE making the switch??? I mean if they are not responsible for their own city's water supply, then what in heaven's name are they responsible for? Making sure the parking meters are shiny?

Quote:

---

the state-appointed emergency manager

---

Wonder why they needed a state-appointed emergency manager? I'm sure it couldn't have had anything to do with the rank incompetence of the elected city officials. Might point out that the same thing is taking place in Detroit. And both cities are run by...democrats.

People get elected to take care of a city's business. They utterly fail to do so, but since they are democrats, you two want to blame the republican governor. It is nothing short of partisan politics.