Obama administration restricts lobbyists

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Blue Velvet, Nov 27, 2009.

  1. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #1

    A bad thing for vested interests with deep pockets, perhaps. The party is over.
     
  2. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #2
    Great move. One of the best things Obama has done.
     
  3. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
  4. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #5
    OUTSTANDING! ;)

    Three things I wonder about:

    1. Does this, then, essentially prevent companies from "writing" the legislation that Congress considers?
    2. Will this cost Obama dearly in terms of the support of business in the 2012 election?
    3. How are the conservatives gonna spin this to make it sound like some horrible thing?
     
  5. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #6
    orly?

    AP

    link

    Some are still there I guess. ;)
     
  6. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #7
    IntheNet, Fivepoint and Shivetya will be along shortly to explain.
     
  7. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #8
    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.
     
  8. Blue Velvet thread starter Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #9

    Good point, although the restrictions seem aimed at the legislative branch.

    Perhaps some pigs are more equal than others. ;)
     
  9. IntheNet macrumors regular

    IntheNet

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    #10
    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."
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...ration-lobbyist-count-increases-39885097.html

    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
    http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-...-and-tom-daschle-the-silliness-continues.html
     
  10. jb1280 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
    #11
    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.
     
  11. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
  12. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #13
    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.
     
  13. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #14
    EDIT:

    (source)

    So Bush doubled the size of government between 2000 and 2005?

    Agreed.
     
  14. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #15
    If he didn't technically he sure as hell tried.
     

Share This Page