Instead of barring lobbying, which is at its essence is consultation with the intent to influence or coerce by supplying information - information sometimes needed by solons - why not have laws that allow solons to consult but only on the record with advance notice. That would offer some transparency currently lacking. It would also - due to being on-the-record - be a means for accountability. And, it would preserve the baby while throwing out the bathwater, leaving consultation between congress and groups within their constituencies open to public scrutiny. All such consultations should be limited to public forums with those in DC preferred and field consultations limited to those where first hand knowledge is reasonably necessary.
1 Like
Wow! This perfectly voices the opinion and stance I was trying to convey above, and the stance I attempted stating on my other thread you commented on about special interest influence in the construction of legislation.
My line of though just fell into publicized, capped, streams of lobbying.
1 Like
The arguement a few of us are making, is that due to in-equal levels of economic influence, the amount lobbied should be capped to create equal economic influence between individuals and multi-national conglomerates.
Allowing ‘special interest groups’ to still file for grievances as per the 1st Amendment, but dismantling the legislative auction that lobbying (bidding for legislation through Congressional Seats) has led to.
in re: lobbying
I tend to agree that there should be no active lobbying of anyone in any branch of the US federal govt and probably none at the state level either. There is only on niggling issue: lobbyist can inform congress on some issues that they need information on. Therefore, how about a law (constitutional amendment) that ban lobbying by any organization that actively seeks to influence congress or anyone in the bureaucracy. Instead, allow only the function of advising government and then only in public sessions that are made part of the public record and then only when the advice is sought by government by invitation made by named individuals and the entity on whose behalf the advice is sought.
IOW, if anyone in government needs to get information from any group representing any business, or other group or individual (lobbyist), they must first invite that lobbyist to a public, recorded session wherein questions are put to the lobbyist and the lobbyist answers or promises to answer with any follow-up answers aslo becoming part of the record. No other interaction between government and lobbyists would be allowed to include lobbyist funding any venues, refreshments or any other such emoluments. If there is a lobbyist teat to which govt officials have been accustomed to sucking from, cut it off.
This does not imply that any legal entity of US citizenship or legal creation cannot file grievances proactively, but must not be allowed to do so to influence legislation.
I have read many times that most (if not all) legislation is drafted by lobbyists/sigs. This practice has to stop even if it means adding congressional staff. Legislation should by authored by individual congressmen or groups of them. Put them in the hopper then if the chair brings them to the floor; let there be public debate by those in congress, then let them be voted on and passed or rejected.
Get the smoke out of the bottle.
I’d also give the right to any congressman to challenge legislation for being too lengthy or too complex for consideration which would cause the matter as stated to be withdrawn based on that consideration. If legislation cannot be made simple and straightforward and easily understandable, then it should not be considered.
Finally, all bills that fund any and all functions of the government - with the possible exception of the spook agency funding (which is a matter for separate discussion) - should be brought as funding for the particular agency that will control how the funds will be spent. These appropriation bills should be submitted according a prescribed form (not unlike GAAP) and debated like any other bill without conflating any such bills and passing them en masse. If that’s too much work for those poor overworked congressmen, then let them step aside and have younger more vigorous minds do the work.
1 Like
I can’t find anything I disagree with. Yet I fear no politican attached to a subversive political apparatus (political party) would ever support the dismantling of their form of legislative drafting.
It will take the US population embodying the revolutionary ideology of our founding fathers.
1 Like
Or, perhaps, a series of Art V Conventions of States that would debate then propose amendments to the constitution that might curb (if not put an end to) the most egregious practices saddled upon us.
2 Likes
This would require a constitutional amendment to enact in order to change the first amendment
I could argue that Title 1 of the US grants rights to legal structures as individuals, an intolerable act, whereas the Constitutional Amendment refers to individuals, and does not directly state a right to ‘pay for’ legislation. That’s plutocracy.