Ask Me Help Desk - The Death of Conservatism

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again:

Clearly, the corporations wouldn't be spending the billions they are on lobbyists if they weren't getting something in return... Nope. They'd be spending it on R&D, or customer service or one of those other old fashioned things they used to do to compete in the marketplace...

When corporations do that, we ALL get screwed. Of course, it's happening. The only who doesn't know about it, is the Wolverine.

So, when "free" market rules are BENT, government has to BEND 'em back.

excon

It is the government that has the power to make and bends the rules. Corporate lobby money is there to influence the governing to bend the rules in their favor. If the governing never bent the rules in the first place, then money to lobby, buy political influence, would be wasted.

G&P

Quote:

Originally Posted by inthebox

If the governing never bent the rules in the first place, then money to lobby, buy political influence, would be wasted.

Hello in:

Seems like we could outlaw lobbying in about two minutes. Lets do it!

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello in:

Seems like we could outlaw lobbying in about two minutes. Lets do it!

excon

'Lobbying' is an exchange of ideas, like sales. The exchange of money - campaign contributions - is the sticky part.

Quote:

Seems like we could outlaw lobbying in about two minutes. Lets do it!

Except it would be unconstitutional.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

except it would be unconstitutional.

Hello again, tom:

I'm all for lobbying with your MOUTH - NOT your pocketbook. We COULD stop the checkwriting.

excon

What you advocate is incumbancy protection. They have tremendous advantages like name recognition, media attention constituency services paid by the taxpayers ,including gvt. Paid for newsletters where the incumbent freely self promotes. Challengers on the other hand need to do a tremendous amt. of advertising and fundraising to come close to levelling the field . Even worse ;without the resources the challenger is dependent on the press and media to compete . That leaves too much power in the hands of the press to decide who our leaders are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

What you advocate is incumbancy protection.

Hello tom:

You got me mixed up with some righty. I'm the guy who WANTS term limits.

Look, we could STOP all this crap by a series of several reforms... You can't do one without doing the other..

We COULD finance our campaigns publicly, thereby REMOVING the advantages of the rich. We could LIMIT the terms our congressman can serve. Then maybe they'll represent the people who they're elected to represent instead of making ALL their decisions based on the next election...

If we did that, then YOUR influence on YOUR congressman would carry the same weight as Dow Chemical company... THAT'S the way it SHOULD be.

excon

Congressional term limits would require a constitutional amendment... don't you know that ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Elliot:

We agree once again... Your solution, however, isn't going to happen in the real world. It's good in theory, but it's never going to happen on the ground. Once the corporations have congress's ear, they're NEVER going to let it go.

But, where I live, in the real world, good tight corporate regulation IS possible. Will it happen?? I don't think so. I think corporate American hasn't had it's way with us enough yet.

excon

The only reason that "it won't happen in real life" is because we keep electing people who won't let it happen.

Thus, our goal has to be to elect REAL CONSERVATIVES who will reintroduce the CONSTITUTION as the rule of law, limit the power of government, and thus end lobbying by ending the government's ability to give "gifts" to the lobbyists.

Your response that "this is the way it is, so we should just elect more of the people who made it the way it is" can only result in a self-fulfilling prophesy. The system perpetutates itself because we keep electing people who perpetuate it because people like you are trying so hard to be "realistic" that ignore the possibility of SOLVING THE PROBLEM.

If you put a bit more effort into the solution instead of trying to get us to increase and grow the problem, you might see some results.

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello in:

Seems like we could outlaw lobbying in about two minutes. Lets do it!

excon

And how, exactly, would you do that.

If people have the ability to talk to a member of Congress, they have the ability to lobby. If people have the ability to talk to the family members of a member of Congress, they have the ability to lobby.

Unless you are prepared to lock every member of Congress up in a room for the 4-6 years of his holding of the office he was elected to, you cannot stop lobbying. You can only stop the passing of MONEY for the purpose of lobbying. Lobbying itself will continue. It can't be outlawed. You can't stop people from passing ideas to each other.

The only way to stop it is to eliminate the power of the government to give the lobbyists what they want. That means decreasing the power of government to that which was granted them in the Constitution, and no more.

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello tom:

You got me mixed up with some righty. I'm the guy who WANTS term limits.

That would require an amendment to the Constitution... which would require lobbying efforts to get it done.

And of course it would require that those who have the most to lose vote to limit their own power. What are the chances of that happening.

Quote:

Look, we could STOP all this crap by a series of several reforms... You can't do one without doing the other..

We COULD finance our campaigns publicly, thereby REMOVING the advantages of the rich.

So you want the government to spend MY tax dollars to support candidates that I don't support. All under the guise of "free speech". Yeah, there's an idea...

Quote:

We could LIMIT the terms our congressman can serve. Then maybe they'll represent the people who they're elected to represent instead of making ALL their decisions based on the next election...

See above for the problems with that.

Quote:

If we did that, then YOUR influence on YOUR congressman would carry the same weight as Dow Chemical company... THAT'S the way it SHOULD be.

Excon

Except that we know it won't happen.

On the other hand... we could eliminate the power of government to grant Dow Chemical what they want by limiting the power of government in general just by voting the right people into Congress and making sure that they in turn appoint the right people to the courts.

That gives US all the power and puts the ball back in our court where it belongs.

Elliot