Establish a Cap on Lobbying Per-Entity

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.

4 Likes

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.

If that makes sense.

1 Like

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.

1 Like

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.

1 Like