Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Blue Velvet, Nov 27, 2009.
A bad thing for vested interests with deep pockets, perhaps. The party is over.
Great move. One of the best things Obama has done.
Three things I wonder about:
Does this, then, essentially prevent companies from "writing" the legislation that Congress considers?
Will this cost Obama dearly in terms of the support of business in the 2012 election?
How are the conservatives gonna spin this to make it sound like some horrible thing?
Some are still there I guess.
IntheNet, Fivepoint and Shivetya will be along shortly to explain.
You need lobbyists, lobbyists are useful - the issue in the US is that they have way too much power. An explicit meeting with lobbyists is OK as that allows them to put across their viewpoint.
Its much more dangerous when they are speaking "impartially" about a topic as their bias then isn't as obvious.
Good point, although the restrictions seem aimed at the legislative branch.
Perhaps some pigs are more equal than others.
True... The One largely exempted the Executive Branch from the show restrictions, so lots of former shady lobbyists swamped the White House and Obama hired them all, often for Cabinet positions...
"As with most of the at least 14 former lobbyists nominated or hired by Obama, Varney and Douglas appear to be not covered by his executive order restricting the official activities of former lobbyists."
You may wish to examine Tom Daschle and his relationship, as a paid lobbyist, to the Obama Administration. Action speaks louder than words and if Daschele is an example of how Obama treats lobbyists (in relation to health care), the White House door is wide open:
The Obama Lobbyist Ban and Tom Daschle: the Silliness Continues
First, why are you posting things that are almost a year old? I thought we have moved beyond the stuff about the ban on lobbyists in the administration.
If you read further in the initial article posted you will see:
The administration and departments are widely excluding lobbyists.
I actually have a mixed opinion on this new executive order, it is a little bit like using a chain saw to prune a bonsai tree.
The fact is that lobbyists have traditionally served an important role in the governing process. Not all lobbyists work for large corporations or push strictly for corporate interests.
The Daschle thing was a huge blow to healthcare reform. The administration was too rigid on its lobbyist position and Daschle messed up by not registering what he actually was. The man, however, literally wrote the book on how to do this sort of reform. In addition, his knowledge of the Senate and Industry would have been enormously beneficial.
The administration needs to deal with the healthcare lobby when dealing with reform. They are one of the entities that needs to be coopted unless you want to totally blow up the system and start over. Some may argue that he is doing that. Some may argue that he needs to do it. The fact is, there is nothing radical about the healthcare legislation, so involving the lobbies is an important step along the way.
The lobbyist problem is that when you combine gerrymandered congressional districts, members of congress whose singular priority is to push for parochial spending despite national concerns, no congressional term limits, and lobbyists who are way smarter than members of Congress, you have to take the chainsaw to the bonsai tree.
Worked out well in the health bill.
The more government you have, the more lobbyists you create. As you expand the numbers of entities subject to regulation, the more different groups you affect--and so they naturally seek to influence the regulations.
It doesn't matter if it's Sierra Club, ACORN or Exxon. Their lobbyists all have the same mission: Influncing government to some benefit or advantage.
But they don't belong on NGO advisory boards or similar commissions. IMO that's corrupt.
So Bush doubled the size of government between 2000 and 2005?
If he didn't technically he sure as hell tried.