Should Lobbyists Be Banned From DU?

With all the fuss about who does and doesn't consort with lobbyists, I'm wondering exactly how far people would go with regard to lobbyists' participation in the political process. By way of a disclaimer (1)I am a registered lobbyist; (2) I give substantial amounts to Democratic candidates, directly, not through any PAC; (3) I long ago predicted that any candidate that tried to make an issue out of not consorting with lobbyists would have that claim come back and bite them on the ass in some way.

So, the question is: should registered lobbyists be allowed to post on DU or should they be barred (a la freepers and trolls)

The choices are great!

LOL

But the corrupt M$M corporatacracy completely shuts down my message.
:popcorn:

Well, I'm no lobbyist, and I have strong feelings about their participation in any political process as an Edwards supporter.

But, I do know that some cretinous DUer, labeled me an Edwards supporter or "operative", because my first post, "Form over substance" was articulate enough to make people think ( based on 39 recs ), and they were obviously an Obama supporter.

If someone like "GalleryGod" can aimlessly roam the board and make slanderous statements, how do we recognize you REAL lobbyists, if you don't tell us?

I think this thread is pure chum.( fish bait )

And, to be totally honest about it, I will find a way to give money to the candidate of my choice whether or not that candidate says he/she is taking money from lobbyists or not. I will do that not because I expect anything in return, but because supporting my candidate financially is something I want to do in order to help that candidate get elected.

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

:D

And send a couple hookers to my hotel room, too.

Personally I've always wanted to play at St Andrews. Can you help me out Onenote?

Ibtl, at least.

And no, no class of people should be banned. However, anyone with a financial interest on anything should disclose that interest.

:evilgrin:

who give you a ticket so's you can get your coat back ?

If you lobby for NARAL, Children's Defense Fund, and Labor groups you are on our side. If you lobby for Exxon, you aren't.

...would make sense...

Okay, maybe that's going TOO far.

But still...

And nobody should have input into legislation, zero, zilch, nada.

Just let the politicos do it.

Then it would be fair. :sarcasm:

has been getting a little scary here on DU and the campaign trail. "Are you now or have you ever been..."

Some lobbying groups off the top of my head: Sierra Club, People for the American Way, AARP, Human Rights Campaign, Children's Defense Fund, National Education Assn, United Negro College Fund, Americans United for Separation of Church/State, Special Olympics, Easter seals Society, Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network, etc, etc

And this is without going into the myriad of unions, colleges and universities, advocacy groups for the elderly, homeless, handicapped and many others.

Are these all bad guys? Does lobbyist = bad guy?

Let's be a little more careful about throwing around the word like a pejorative.

I'll show myself out.

eh?

:shrug: