Strong legislation needs to be in place to stop the revolving door.

Edit: I have personally hired a lobbyist for myself. Other than my direct payment to them, no cash ever moved. Many people truly don't know the full scope of lobbyists. I hired mine to elicit information from the Florida legislature and the DBPR.

I don't respect those who try to convince others that lobbyists aren't trying to influence politicians for benefit of their backers.

Lobbyists for gun control have my interests at heart. Lobbyists for progressive taxation have my interests at heart.

I fully agree that without stronger legislation that the process is seriously flawed. But in a representative republic lobbyists are extremely necessary in my opinion.

The NRA has much deeper pockets than their opposition, as do those fighting against family planning or for progressive taxation.

That's a big part of the reason we have lax gun control, our kids are taught abstinence only, and every new tax disproportionately hits the poor and working class.

That's not to suggest I'm against every form of lobbying. Appealing to a politician is perfectly legitimate and proper. Taking them to expensive meals and events, and donating large sums to their campaign coffers, is not.

It's also difficult when the people needed to change this aspect are the ones receiving the perks. It is a major flaw in a system that works pretty well. There are numerous issues where congress is needed to change things that they currently benefit from in direct contrast to the benefits we receive.

Unfortunately, I doubt Hillary, Bernie, Marty, Lincie, or Jimmy can do much about it so long as SCOTUS declares every law attempting to regulate the undue influence of money to candidates unconstitutional.

That's the one thing that will likely get me to the polls if Hillary wins the nomination, as she's likely to do. I may strongly disagree with her on many policy issues and despise the campaign she's running, but we need to change the make up of that Court.

Which is that lobbyists have an expectation the people they are lobbying will vote the way they want on issues.

I don't see where the op or myself are in that much disagreement or where we have really said the other is wrong on a deep level as you are implying. It was a good conversation. Not everything is a got ya or discussed in a vacuum.

If a lobbyist decides to donate their personal money to a political campaign, the reason is because that lobbyist, as an individual, supports that candidate. Donating personal money to politicians is not part of a lobbyists job.

Furthermore, the amounts of money we are talking about here are tiny. It's going to be a billion dollar campaign, and the amounts of money raised by these lobbyists total maybe a couple hundred thousand (which again, comes from personal pockets, not corporations). If you think you can affect the course of policy with $200K of personal donations you are deluded.

I have a lovely iconic bridge I'd like to sell you.



I'm willing to take payment in installments.

Corporations absolutely find ways to funnel money to the campaigns and private pockets of politicians that support them and their industries. Not from the pockets of their lobbyists, not unless they took money out of the company coffers to put in their lobbyist's pocket for him to take out and spread around town. It's absolutely part of a lobbyist's job.

To believe otherwise is to be daft or willfully obtuse.

Of course corporations find ways to influence politicians. And of course it involves money. But this is not an example of it. This is actually an example of money coming out of the pockets of individual lobbyists in order to support a candidate that they like.

The corporation. So the lobbyist is the middle man to make it appear legal. Id say 90% of the politicians in Washington are bought and paid for.

It's illegal (of course) for a company to require that employees donate their personal money to a specific candidate.

They do things illegal all the time.
The lobbyist especially the ones that represent the dark side(so to speak) get their salary and bonuses and expense accounts from these corporations, they over pay them enough to ensure their bribe money is readily available.
Not to mention money that is off the books and under the table and the to big to fail corporations and their too big to fail political puppets ignore the law and do as they please because nobody is going to stop them because they are the ones who control the system and the media and the government.

prison time.

The same people they are paying off?
Whose going to expose them? The media that they control?

You have a blind faith in a corrupt system. A system of laws that are only used to attack people who disagree with the establishment.

Corporate abuse of human rights and the common law of humanity is well documented. Violating laws for a multi-national is business as usual.

If groups like Peta or planned parent hood did these things they would.be investigated and prosecuted.

But multinationals like shell oil and transcanada and boeing and all defense contractors and health insurance conglomerates, corporate prison industry, gun lobby, big pharma and the mega wealthy like Kochs and Soros and all their ilk believe themselves to be above the law and operate as though they are.

I don't have "blind faith" in anything except for reason. You are spouting conspiracy theories.

The corporate crime wave that is seen throughout the globe is not some conspiracy theory.

Our mainstream news organizations have become a joke. They are just apologist for the monied elites.
Anything outside of the mainstream news gets labeled conspiracy theory and ignored. The easiest way to stifle debate and waking people up to the injustice and crime all around us just call it a conspiracy theory.

I just don't buy your "private prison lobbyist with a heart of gold" theory.

And yes, $200,000, although I'm pretty sure the amount is likely much, much larger going to Hillary's super pacs, is enough to buy influence when it comes from a single corporate demographic with bottomless pockets.

Yes, $200K is nothing. And it has nothing to do with a "heart of gold", it simply has to do with people spending their own personal money in the way they want.

As far as Super PACs, go, if you have evidence that they are being flooded by corporate money from private prisons, it would be good to present it. But you don't, it's just another conspiracy theory.

If you don't want to believe what I'm saying, that's fine. Team Hillary has put a veneer of deniability on their campaign practices expressly so people like you can claim that there's no concrete evidence.

I don't expect you to answer truthfully in this forum, but would you give Scott Walker the same benefit of the doubt with regard to contributions by the Koch brothers?

A tiny fraction of the $50M she raised was bundled by a lobbyist who has represented a private prison. So small a fraction that it is laughable that people are trying to make a big deal about it. Yeah, she's "owned" by private prisons because a couple lobbyists bundled like $50k in individual donations for her. LOL.

And other than that there are conspiracy theories. Not the first one from Hillary bashers, and it won't be the last.

As far as Scott Walker and the Koch Brothers, the Kochs don't contribute mainly to campaigns. What they do is contribute to Super PACs. And the amount they spend is in the hundreds of millions. It's a whole different universe.

I certainly won't claim to know what you truly believe, as doubtful as I find it to be.

I can only say that I don't believe it's reasonable to think that lobbyists who take their salaries are going to give money to a candidate they believe would harm their income. Nor do I believe that they would be donating to a candidate personally while flooding their opponent with cash from their employer.

There's a reason those cows hold up signs telling people to eat at chik-fil-a instead of wendy's.

on private prisons, then you believe that.

n/t

mass incarceration.

She can tell a friendly audience it's time to put a unicorn in every pot, but until she actually tells us in what ways she's changed from her old "Lock 'em up for life" Hillary stances, I'm not wrong.

Here's part of it.

According to your clip, she wants to allow low-level drug offenders who "stay clean" a chance to stay out of jail. If they're staying clean, and keeping out of trouble, they won't be incarcerated in the first place.

She also said something about "de-institutionalizing those in mental health facilities" but didn't actually say she would do that, only that it was supposed to happen.

These aren't policies, they're fluffy words meant to dazzle the unwashed masses. To quote the great Walter Mondale, "Where's the beef?"

Also obviously, it's enough to know where she stands on the issue, and that she's not somehow in the pocket of private prison companies.

You posted the speech as policy and I pointed out its lack of substance, or even general positions on the issue. She doesn't want to incarcerate people who haven't broken the law and then points out a fact without making a statement about what she'd do to rectify the situation. That's not good.

I've seen nothing coming from Hillary that suggests that she has radically changed her views on incarcerating generations of young people of color.

I also don't think that the occasional dinner ticket to show one's face is quite the same as funneling many thousands into super pacs, but reasonable people can disagree.

Like I said, you'll find organizations donating to "both sides". They are buying access. Whether that achieves influence is pretty much up to the candidate. It is often a bet on the part of the lobbyist and they get paid to make "good bets". In the case of one guy, all he really wanted was to be seen by opponents as being "in the White House". That alone was worth the price of admission whether he got anything else or not.

But I don't think giving to both sides negates my argument of influence. They're merely influencing everyone instead of just one party. Nearly every conglomerate does this and it shows in our current laws. To me, that's influence.

And while I agree that whether money equals influence is up to the candidate, I think history shows that corporations generally stop giving to candidates who reject their influence rather quickly. Hence the reason banks are a major contributor to Hillary and unions are a major contributor to Bernie (technically, their employees but I think we can be honest enough with each other to forego that charade). Each believes that their funds will influence the candidate or the candidate already agrees with them.

The banking industry will give heavily to both sides if Hillary wins the nomination expressly so that they can influence anyone likely to win the White House. If Hillary made it clear (and could show she meant it) that she would reinstate banking regulations and work to break up "too big to fail" banks, they would stop giving to her in any real amount because it wouldn't influence her.

they still deny it.

And there is another aspect of lobbyist that has come out of Citizens United... and that is dark money. For all we know every candidate is getting money from the "eat kittens for breakfast PAC" and none of us will be the wiser... at least not until laws are passed out of nowhere.

They can't support minority rights while endorsing politicians who take large sums of money from private prison lobbyists. They can say they support them, but they really don't. They support their candidate, regardless of the policies that candidate endorses.

Even sadder than the denial, will be the abrupt change in core values once Team Hillary sends back these funds (redirects them to the super pac) if/when this news gets wings. They'll trumpet how she's done the right thing, even though they were defending her doing the wrong thing the day before.

Situational ethics are not limited to one camp though. This is part of what ails us as a country, that is hyper partisanship.

It is so bad that I know once we start seeing more obvious ugliness, I intend to leave this place.

republicans. The last seven years have been so discouraging that I don't really care if I call myself a democrat any more. Now the same group claims that Clinton campaign donors won't effect how she presides. Flexible ethics.

and this is one reason, Democratic Underground. I would never dream of joining EITHER party either ever again... unless I am crazy or delusional enough to actually run for office. But at this point this is part of the problem

Mind you, Republicans have the lion share of issues with hyper partisanship.. more than a few studies now with political scientists, but Democrats are not innocent. The system is starting to behave like a parliamentary system and this is not compatible with our system of government. Of course when I am called a centrist for pointing this out and a Friedman acolyte I gotta smile. It shows the same level of willful ignorance and anti intellectualism that is the rage and has gotten the country into quite the pickle.

I have no idea how this will end, but the play is not one that is nice. We have a series of crisis and this is not helping. And while in my regular reporting I will blame the Rs 99 percent of the time, Democrats need to do a lot of soul searching too. The verse applies here, "he who is free of sin, throw the first stone."

I seriously wish that people even tried to understand what PACs, Super PACs, and Citizens United actually did.

but if you think they have zero influence, I got lovely ocean front property for sale in Arizona. Hey, it is a steal! Jump in while the getting is good.

Of course, this OP isn't about Super PACs or dark money, it is about individual contributions (not contributions from private prison corporations as the OP falsely claims) made. Is it really so hard not to say false things?

I think (hope) that the people making posts like this actually know better, but choose to lie because saying things factually (i.e. an individual who works as a lobbyist and has represented private prisons in the past also bundled personal contributions for the Clinton campaign) then it doesn't seem nearly as conspiratorial.

Look. unlike you, I do look at FEC documentation all the time. It is good to see that you guys have evolved from NYET, to maybe, or worst, a good hearted lobbyist.

It is actually a riot to watch. It is truly popcorn ready moment.

So are you interested in some of that property?

Actually, we would know that, thanks to that FEC documentation you seem to be familiar with.

The FEC documents also show that out of the 50M or so Hillary has raised, a miniscule fraction was bundled by a lobbyist who has represented a private prison company. Conspiracy!

it is a reality of CU as well.

It is not a false statement either. You need to do some reading and off to soft ignore you go. Trying to have a conversation with you is fun, in a sort of dark way, but it is not productive and i have a lot of reading to do on income inequality, movement politics, identify politics, local policy and yes the aforementioned FEC.

Trying to discuss actual issues on DU is like trying to discuss knitting on a fishing boat in the middle of the storm. You can try, but it is not productive.

I will leave you with this. The country is suffering from a series of crisis. Solutions are needed, but they ain't gonna happen becuase of hyper partisanship. You DANTEX are part of the problem.

On edit, no, nobody is going on ACTUAL ignore... that be silly.

Again, dark money doesn't go to candidates. I think it's a good idea for you to read up on the FEC.

I agree that solutions are needed. "Hyper-partisanship" is not the problem, though. That's one of those beltway centrist talking points, the kind of thing that Tom Friedman says. The problem is the Republicans.

of the sides is the GOP is idiotic. The problem is the GOP, not "partisanship". On every issue.

Yeah, there's a crisis in our government. It is caused by the GOP. They've gone way off the deep end.

son... here is hint, I am to the left of the democratic party.

Son, you should stop insulting people and actually READ what is given to you. I get it that you are proud of your centrism so what you are doing is projecting... and that you are proud of your partisanship... I expect MORE projecting.

You are part of the problem though. And now will pop some popcorn I expect even more misconstructions and misinterpretations, This is what make you in particular so damn entertaining and predictable. Prove me wrong, ONCE.

I am proud of being a liberal Dem, and not buying into the "both sides" Tom Friedman rhetoric.

Ironically, Citizens United, which is what we were talking about, is a highly partisan issue: Dems want it overturned, Reps don't. And all the justices in the majoirty for it were Republican appointees.

I am talking out of academic research son. And yes,you are proving highly entertaining.

And trust me, you talk like a centrist and a highly partisan person. In fact, hyper partisan. So keep projecting. You would not know an academic paper if it hit you in the nose.

that kind of thing. Global warming, evolution, supply side economics, etc.

I'm not sure what academics you read, but the idea that it is "partisanship" and not the GOP that, for example, is preventing us from doing something about climate change is absurd.

I'm "partisan" in the sense that I don't buy your centrist nonsense that the problem is "both parties fighting" when in substance it is very clear that one of them is wrong.

But political science research nor are you telling me anything I don't know

And keep projecting on the "centrist nonesense" as I said,you would not know an academic paper on hyper partisanship and the damage it is doing to the political system if it bopped you in the nose

You are part of the problem. Far less frankly than those in power. Hell the Republicans in Congress get the whale sized responsibility for this state of affairs. But the D's do have a smidgen of responsibility as well.

The loosers though are the people nothing gets done and hyper psrtsans applaud hoot and holler.

Sure, maybe you read a paper somewhere that convinced you of it, but it is still a centrist argument: the problem is "partisanship" and not one party or the other. Interestingly, you haven't even attempted to defend this argument with any logic or evidence, you simply say that "political science research" says it's true (which of course you don't cite).

And somehow it all implies that I am part of the problem. LOL.

Again, the reason we don't do anything significant about climate change is not "partisanship", it's the GOP. Although Obama's latest initiative is a step in the right direction. And the same goes for pretty much every other issue. "Partisanship" is what centrist pundits and journalists like to blame things on so they can sound smart and feel superior to "both sides." Something which you obviously like doing as well.

Not that this surprises me. Not a paper son, many of them.

And you keep projecting this nonesense. Perhaps because at heart you are part of the problem.

Maybe some day you will get it. I doubt it. But hell, miracles do happen.

As soon as I ask you to explain your bizarre "partisanship" hypothesis, you duck out. Figures.

And partisans to varying degrees are part of the problem. Yes, republicans get the whale sized responsibility here. But democrats, even if mouse sized, are not precisely able to wash hands.

In the end we get a dysfunctional government that cannot find its ass with both hands. And partisans, you are one, share in the blame. Even if your part is a speck you are still part of the problem. And you are a centrist. Which is funny that you keep calling me one. After all you got no clue of what policies I support.

Mind you, I don't bother with policy at DU anymore. It is the toxic hyper partisan environment that has flourished. We used to.

Autocorrect. Arghh

We have dysfunctional government because of the GOP. Because they are opposed to everything that we should be doing, across all issues. You argument is impossibly naive, you're basically ignoring the entire substance of policy.

I mean, yeah, if you ignore the fact that the GOP wants to cut taxes on the wealthy and pump lots of CO2 into the air and deregulate everything and stop gay people from living their lives, then I can see how you arrive at "partisanship" as the boogeyman. But when you actually look at what the "two sides" are trying to accomplish, things become a lot clearer.

And I am not ignoring a thing... and you are a centrist.

Oh and I do not consider political speeches ahem policy. You do. I don't.

Now Policing in the 21st Century, that IS POLICY. I read policy almost daily son.

Every major progressive org has lobbyists too. Even republican lobbyists.

In my state we hired a republican lobbyist to help pass a LGBT anti- discrimination bill. Why a republican? Because at the time we needed 2 republican votes to pass it, and that lobbyist had the relationships and more importantly knew which were most persuadable on the issue. And it worked. That didn't mean that lobbyist was for LGBT rights. It was just a job to her.

You have an incorrect perception of lobbying as a profession, IMO.

I don't buy what you're selling. Never have and never will as I suspect our goals are diametrically opposed.

How many people do you know that are evangelically passionate about their employer? Not many. Same with lobbyists.

My guess is not that many, but you continue with your "private prison lobbyist with a heart of gold" theory. At least it makes for a good laugh.

I'm consistently telling you it isnt about heart - its just a job. And that is reality. You make it obvious you don't understand lobbyists.

n/t

It's clear to me the answer is no. So what makes you think you know more about it than someone who has actually hired them in conjunction with working with liberal policy orgs?

I'm on the board of an environmental non-profit that lobbies all the time. You don't have to believe that any more than I believe you do anything more than post propaganda on webforums, but it's true.

Our lobbyist actually believes in the merits of clean air and water. She doesn't stop working at 5pm then spend her evenings pushing for fewer environmental regulations.

If the lobbyists you supposedly work with do, that's something you'll have to deal with, or not.

Got it.

n/t

.... On this issue is relevant - yes. And it's just silly to think lobbyists are any different than lawyers in this regard. A client is a client. There is no ideological litmus test involved.

As I said, you have no idea what I do or how involved I am with it. You're making up garbage, as usual, to self-justify your purposeful ignorance on the subject at hand.

I'll leave you with this: If you have lobbyists working for your alleged organization who don't support your causes, then you're wasting resources. But I'm guessing your supposed employer is as well based on your statements in this thread.

I already explained to you that we hired a republican lobbyist to get the two republican votes we needed to pass a bill. Just one example. And it was the best money our org ever spent.

You're just not well versed on how lobbying works. Period.

I just don't have any faith that what your saying is true based on your post history. That's what happens when you post things that are meant to deceive people, you lose credibility and can't be taken seriously.

I'm not going to give up my identity to prove it to you. So take it or leave it. My main interest is in pointing out to others that your OP is wrong, and just misinformation.

Since you have never in your life worked with a lobbyist why do you believe you're an expert on them?

Reminds me of those Holiday Inn commercials except they are trying to be funny.

That's why I can't take you seriously. Once a person's credibility is ruined, they have little to fall back on.

Right?

I don't think it's possible to have a real discussion with you.

You're just now realizing that?

Honest!!

It is tolerated bribery. To suggest otherwise is dellusional.

Right? Look, HRC, Obama, Sanders etc did not invent our campaign finance system. The USSC court did. And they were able to do that thanks to the extreme left doing the same thing to Gore as they are doing to Hillary. Sadly.

Centrists, like yourself based on your accusations of extremism, who merely try to straddle the line between party platforms in order to rake in the most cash, might not understand why us "extreme leftist" don't support incarcerating millions of young people for the sake of profit. We just think that lives matter more than money.

Strange but true.

But thanks for your opinion. However, I think you may need to send your crystal ball in for repairs. It appear to be malfunctioning.

I think it was one of the private prisons run by the people who pay the lobbyists who donate to Hillary, but I can't be

Not even close.

It fits in with your belief that you're an expert on lobbyists even though you've never met or worked with one.

Again, credibility, once lost, is hard to get back.

Have you ever worked with a lobbying firm. Don't deflect - just yes or no?

Why should I bother trying to seriously discuss anything with someone who does nothing more than post deceptions and half-truths? I respect people who support Hillary who can stand up and support her positions, not those who make up crap and post out of context quotes in order to trick others into supporting or reviling a candidate.

Anyone who can't honestly support their candidate does not deserve real answers.

And it's because you want to play expert, yet have zero experience on the issue you're pretending to be an expert on.

Don't cry that I'm making claims about you that I don't know then turn around and do the same.

Not unless you actually enjoy the laughter.

As the kids say. I think you've helped me demonstrate my point perfectly. Thanks for your help.

Another reason to question your credibility.

.... Else that you have no experience with as well? LOL! Keep digging.

It's my expert opinion that I've truly enjoyed this little discussion. Look me up if you ever want to be mocked for posting absolute bullshit in the future.

It's how the right of citizens to talk to their representations as a corporation is implemented.

When I say "corporation," that includes churches, HOAs, Greenpeace, PETA, the US Students Association, UCLA Undergraduate, and numerous other corporate entities.

Unions have lobbyists. It's that, or the only way that some large organization could approach and speak for its membership is if all the individuals do it as individuals. (Then they represent the organization, which is sort of backwards.)

Access is a different matter, but typically lobbyists don't donate huge sums. It's sort of a "down payment," a show of good faith; the lobbyist hired may or may not support the organization hiring him/her, but often does. Given a Congressman with 200 people trying to approach him that day, it's as good as any other way.

One thing left out is that a lobbyist often does a lot more than just say, "Here's $$, vote for this bill." Often the lobbyist tries to convince fence-sitters, or buttress the arguments used by those who support the bill. They propose everything from broad outlines of legislation to submitting 500 pages of double-spaced text all ready for insertion into the Congressional language necessary for sponsoring it as a bill.

The President lobbies Congress in some of the most politically strong-arming ways possible. "Pass this bill, I'll sign this bill over here. Alter the bill in this way or I'll veto it." Often what's threatened with a veto isn't horrible, but it's not as high priority as what the President is threatening to hold it up over.

But professional lobbying needs to be severely curtailed.

1976 and the one thing that really stood out to me was the fact that many groups do not have anyone to lobby for them. And I have been lobbying for the poor and disabled ever since. Also for my family who are mostly Native Americans.

Have never taken a dime for it and never paid out a dime either. Well except for stamps.

I dare say that most of the people on DU have done exactly the same thing throughout their lives. The only difference is we call it advocacy.