Currently there is no financial cap to what any certain type of entity can lobby for in Congress. Businesses like Casey’s, Walmart, 7-Eleven, Target, Amazon, McDonald’s; all multi-million dollar, multi-national companies that could out lobby a majority of communities, and almost every individual in the auction that is Congress.
Some would say there are certain advantages in funding and accumulating support for a bill through lobbying. In order to keep the benefits on financial incentive for legislation, but to remove the aspects that create unequal influence in Congress, we must establish a cap on the amount any entity can pay into a bill.
First, a redefinition of said entities must take place.
the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;
Second, an affordable, but influential dollar amount must be set as a cap for individuals, corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies; in order to create equal economic influence. Ensuing that multi-million dollar, multi-national entities have the same influence as individuals.
Third, a system of transparency, and clear ‘donation’ paths must be established for the public. The influence behind any such bill should be publicized.
Fourth, all funds lobbied should have a priority purpose; either funding such proposition or going directly into the treasury/budget.
Fifth, a ban must be established on all foreign lobbying.
There are many posted proposals on the topic of lobbying, but not one with a clear image of across-the-board representation and influence through lobbying, or the absence thereof.
RE: Rules of Construction
Number 5 sticks out a little bit for possible abuse. As long as the true meaning is not manipulated to a desired groups narrative rather than the reason the bill passed in the first place. There is a place for the Courts and the history of why the bill was passed.
Number 3 seems like the most important point to me. If more people knew just how much money was changing hands then there might not be as much support for a particular lobby. Then maybe the people’s voice would eventually get through by voting.
I get what you’re saying. At the very least there needs to be a sort of communication between individuals and their representatives about the general wording/understanding for the meaning of legislation.
Is there something you’d like to suggest?
Also: are you referencing pt. 5 of the lobbying proposal or the General Rules of Construction proposal? Just to clarify.
Logically, any lobbying and donations are bribery and must be prohibited. Politicians receive salaries, which must be their only source of income. This is the only way to break the vicious circle of money that brings power, and power brings more money.
Removing money from politics not only significantly reduces the corruption of the government but will solve the problem of term limits.
I agree with you completely, I support a total ban of lobbying, yet with previous cases it has been protected under the 1st Amendment as a form of filing for grievances, so a cap was the comprimising proposal.
If we go this route why not just ban financial contributions all together from lobbyists. Still get to say and argue their point. However i would like to see corporations also be banned from financial contributing to any political organization. A company is not a person, finding should only be from a person and ear marked with that person’s name. As to many giants are shifting money through organizations to avoid their name being associated with said cause. Not only that they are using the companies to go over their personal cap of contributions.
I am voting this one up, but IMO private corp or any others should be zero lobbying! there are many things out there that govs shouldnàt be bother with