The only jobs loeft for lobbyists will be 'Czars' in the Messiah's White House

Lobbyists aren't the problem. They are a symptom of the problem, which is that pol's are money hungry whores, all too happy to craft legislation favorable to the wishes of their biggest campaign contributors, if not willing to cede authorship of said legislation to those contributors altogether.

.....lobbyists should be tried for treason.......

Lobbying is essentially legalized bribery.

Lobbyists could be severely curtailed if sane lobbying reform bills were passed.

Sed bills will never see the light of day due to the fact that every single politician in office today got their due to support from the companies these lobbyists represent.

Nice to see Obama recognizes the problem and implement steps to reduce the power of these guys in DC but the task is so monumental Spud does not hold out hope for much success here.

Be Well.

"Nice to see Obama recognizes the problem and implement steps to reduce the power of these guys in DC but the task is so monumental Spud does not hold out hope for much success here."

Seems like the way of the game is largely to speak out against things you know you really can't do anything about and to be depressingly silent on those things you could conceivably affect.

"That is just the kind of special interest access that the president objects to."

Just because you give lobbyists bad names, doesnt mean all of them are bad.
......#6 | Posted by AndreaMackris

.....they are neither good nor bad in themselves...

...however, they have a vested interest (sponsor), whose agenda they must promote, whether it's in the national interest or not.......

......regardless of who gets hurt..........

......time to flush them out of the "system" for the betterment of this country.......

-Seems like the way of the game is largely to speak out against things you know you really can't do anything about and to be depressingly silent on those things you could conceivably affect.

Are you talking about being married?

Jeebus!

The guy finally does something libs should like, but all you can do is say that it won't work and he should do other things that you think might?

I want my sweetheart ring back.

What needs to stop is allowing them to write bills, or have direct access to inject thier pet projects into bills.
......#6 | Posted by AndreaMackris

......I agree with you........

.....but for now, this is a good first step.......

Until we do this

What needs to stop is allowing them to write bills, or have direct access to inject thier pet projects into bills.

#6 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2009-11-27 10:30 AM

Like the Senate Dems bribing Mary Landrieu with $100 million to her state so she would change her HC vote?

It's about frickin time.

"The guy finally does something libs should like, but all you can do is say that it won't work and he should do other things that you think might?"

My reasons for saying as much were twofold... one, that their participation on advisory panels aught to be a good thing, if our pol's weren't such sloppy whores for their campaign cash. this doesn't change that and probably won't change their ability to advise and/or write laws in their favor, it just kicks them off the panels. In that light, this is more of a PR move than anything else. Two, I hadn't had my second cup of coffee yet.

"I want my sweetheart ring back."
#8 | Posted by Corky

That was for time and all eternity, sweety.

*blows corky a kiss.

Until we do this, www.publicampaign.org, and get serious about bribery laws, these incremental changes are all we will get, and be lucky to get those.
#10 | Posted by Corky

If I told you that could be seen as, to quote Malcolm X, "house negro" thinking, would you be insulted?

Yes?

Then I'm not saying it.

Somebody flag that asshole at #14 as abusive/offensive.

Didn't we hear this promise a few times last year and more than once the last 10 months? No wonder this has received little fanfare. Obama has already proven he is talking out of his ass for political points...

WASHINGTON Barack Obama often boasts he is "the only candidate who isn't taking a dime from Washington lobbyists," yet his fundraising team includes 38 members of law firms that were paid $138 million last year to lobby the federal government, records show.
Those lawyers, including 10 former federal lobbyists, have pledged to raise at least $3.5 million for the Illinois senator's presidential race. Employees of their firms have given Obama's campaign $2.26 million, a USA TODAY analysis of campaign finance data shows.

Does this mean unemployment will go up? Wasn't this administration supposed to create jobs?

But seriously...Good

*blows corky a kiss.

(corky ducks!) Kiss hits Codfish, who is in permanent position behind me, and his world goes all 1940's Disney color.

-our pol's weren't such sloppy whores for their campaign cash

So we take away the necessity for raising campaign cash, which, I think we would find, would be popular among honest pols(Oxymoron alert!) who hate the grind of raising cash anyway.

"house negro" thinking

You are just being vindictive, lol!

It is a very ignorant policy to make it so black-or-white. Sometimes, lobbyists have good ideas, and insights, and experience.

Lobbyists do far more harm than good. Our government would be a much better one if a law was passed to herd all the lobbyists into the sea like lemmings.

Just another toothless policy statement, the WH has virtually no power over most of these panels (according to the article).

Besides, do you really think K Street will let go without a whimper? "Lobbyist" is an easily lost title on the hill.

Without the corporate GOP, this could be a non-partisan issue.

The first thing, and one of the few political things, that Mao se Dung, as he was known then, and I ever agreed on was that we should move Congress to the middle of Kansas somewhere, build a big fence around it to keep lobbyists out, and, for my part anyway, insist they do the business of the common people instead of that of the moneyed few.

"Just another toothless policy statement, the WH has virtually no power over most of these panels" (according to the article).

Be nice if he would kick all the registered lobbyists off his own staff and departments before asking other federal agencies to do the same. I think this is a s"trong recommendation" from the WH, like the one that worked getting ACORN out of Conyer's crosshairs. I doubt Congress will give up their cash cows on this though.

Like the Senate Dems bribing Mary Landrieu with $100 million to her state so she would change her HC vote?

Don't worry, Governor Pyrush Jindu the Hindu won't take the money because it's evil socialism and he's a Krishna fearing Conservative. I'm pretty sure no Republican Governor has allowed any of that evil money to be spent in their state, just as no Republican Congressman allowed any to be spent in their district.

Lobbyists do far more harm than good. Our government would be a much better one if a law was passed to herd all the lobbyists into the sea like lemmings.

#20 | Posted by rcade at 2009-11-27 11:28 AM

Not all lobbyists are bad.

I belong to two organizations that have lobbyists in Washington.

One is the ARRL (Amateur Radio Relay League), which lobbies for laws and policy to advance Ham Radio operators.

The other is AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association), which advocates for Privae pilots and General Aviation.

Roy: Would those groups have to hire lobbyists if DC wasn't full of them? Members of the groups could just contact representatives on their own behalf.

Roy: Would those groups have to hire lobbyists if DC wasn't full of them? Members of the groups could just contact representatives on their own behalf.

#26 | Posted by rcade at 2009-11-27 12:52 PM

That's true, but...

Sometimes it's better to have one voice carrying the message, advised by lawyers who understand the complexities of legislation, and how it can affect their members.

Well...the real issue is not so much the lobbyists themselves, but ANY member of Congress who takes ANYTHING from them in terms of money, gift or influence.. it is a character flaw in the ones who are serving..
and, if I remember correctly, this was one of those rhetorical messages throughout the campaign that has taken a year to address??? all while also sucking in the monies indirectly himself???
I think it would be ideal to get lobbyists out of Washington, but they are not the real problem and as it goes, Obama never really focuses on the real problem or solution..!!!!

These people are pretty much advisers---let's hope this isn't all show and another "bait and switch". Please folks, don't watch the words, watch the action---like the magician watch the hand not involved in the act.

You are just being vindictive, lol!

#19 | Posted by Corky

Since you lol'd, I won't leave the retort.

I embarrassed myself there.

How can anyone be paid to advocate a certain position? Then sit on one our councils advising our govt? Without a paid "peoples advocate"?

At the very least this is a conflict of interest.

At the very least this is a conflict of interest.
#31 | Posted by fresno500

Take it up with your local pol, fresno. But first check who his/her biggest campaign contributor is.

Gee corky how refreshing! Now we will have advisory boards chuck full of the deep pockets who paid campaign fees to put their zero in office.

CHANGE...not hardly. Can you tell us Corky who is Andy Stern, why he was the #1 visitor to Obama's WH, and why the SEIU now has a union thug on the board of the Fed Reserve???????

What a revolting development for Trent Lott.

In December 2007 the poor guy resigns from the Senate early so he could beat the two year waiting period (which was previously one year) to become a lobbyist and charge big bucks to peddle his insider connections to special interest clients.

Now, a scant two years later, this new rule comes along and all his dreams of becoming America's #1 influence peddler go up in smoke.

This guy just can't seem to catch a break. LOL

This is good start. Years ago, I once argued the merits of lobbyists with a staunchly republican friend once who owned a successful convenience store in Kona. His main argument was that he felt the lobbyist for the Association of Convenience Stores was looking out for his best interest. I pointed out that lobbyists for the big chain stores were going to eat him for lunch. This was just before Walmart, Target, and Kmart successfully fought a battle with State Planning Commission which was initially opposed to big box stores in Kailua-Kona in order to protect the already adaquite conglomerate of smaller retailers. As expected, once the big stores got in, his business was clobbered. He now runs a coffee shop at the same location and it's barely able to keep the doors open. His main grip now is that lobbyists had wrecked the local business atmosphere in Kona.