DAVIS: Lobbyists are good people, too

Wake up America. Lobbyists represent special interest groups for big business. Who do you think supports them and showers politicians with toys. Why do you think that oil, and medicine and healthcare is almost beyond the reach of the common man. Their days should be numbered. i am not surprised, though, to see this article as the times seems to be pro-Republican/big business in their views. That is what has damaged this country.

Yep, Davis. Who else? Pffft! Pay to play politics of access.

I hardly doubt Lanny Davis is "pro-Republican/big business" (TyinPS). I think Lanny Davis and other Democrat operatives are in the middle of reprogramming the voters. We just went thru another election cycle where one constant Democratic tactic has been to paint lobbyists as bad bad bad. Now that McCain has lost and Democrats have the entire government in their grips, it is time to start to undo the damage to the public perception of lobbying and lobbyists. We are already being reprogrammed with respect to the deficit. Under Republican government, even after being attacked and having to fight a war, Democrats constantly attacked the "Bush deficit". This drumbeat continued all thru this last year when the Democratic Congress proceeded to spend us into the largest deficit ever (it's not even close). Once Obama won Democrats started telling us the deficit is not so bad, and even necessary because of the state of the economy. Think about that, when it comes to Democrat spending priorities, the economy is an excuse to run a deficit the likes we have never seen. But the war we are fighting against Islamic extremists was not an excuse to run a deficit! The gist of the article by Lanny Davis is correct. Lobbying is nothing other than an exercise of our constitutional right to petition the government. Unfortunately our government is so vast and touches every aspect of our lives that lobbying is totally necessary. The real intent of the article though is to cool the voters down and get them to start accepting the lobbying and lobbyists that will soon turn most of their attention, and campaign dollars to the Democrats and President-elect Obama. I suspect like the with the deficit, we can see more Democrats and liberals telling us just the opposite of what they have been saying for the last 2 years when it comes to lobbying.

I just heard this man on NPR. He keeps trying to equate the straight up corrupt HEAVY vote-based donors like Merck, Phizer, AIG, and all the rest with the Girl Scouts and The Amer. Heart Assoc. Come off your high horse, Mr. Davis. You say that there are no bad lobbyists only poor transparency. That is like saying a thief is not a criminal, because the house should have had a better security system. Dangerous logic. How about we deal with the real issue and that is donations. Lobbyists are supposed to present information. There should be NO funds exchanging hands. Of course they find ways around that, too. So, if they can't play fair - bar them ALL from the game. Period. Maybe our representatives in government will actually have to do their own research into issues and, here's a concept, actually listen to their constituents rather than corporations for a change. www.thetruhburns.wordpress.com

Here we go again with Davis in the "norming" mode. Look very carefully at this. This is how Obama's principled diplomacy will work. Use a lawyers tautology to convince people that logically you are right, gain consensus and then reset the relative standard to your definition, in this case - good. In the past it was called appeasement, under Clinton, it was called compartmentalization. I really don't think this will work with the likes of Putin, Chavez or Jintao. They have a tendency to view it as a vulnerability to be exploited.

Maybe most lobbyists are good, honest folks. So are most priests. But when a good priest remains silent about a criminal colleague, he loses all claim to "good". http://thetruthburns.wordpress.com/2008/11/18/lobbyists-are-good-people-too-just-not-good-people-first/

Dear Mr. Davis: As an immigrant who became citizen of the USA in 2000, I am working hard on catching up with the way our country operates, especially regarding politics. Your editorial in the Washington Post on Monday, November 17, 2008 called “Lobbyists are good people too” did open my eyes to the fact that all too often we picture lobbyists representing the pharmaceutical or oil industry trying to push their cause on the Hill backed by millions of dollars. I liked your proposal about transparency, although I doubt that this will ever become a law, simply because it would impede the daily operation of the lawmakers and lobbyists. It would take these very people to pull this off. The first amendment allows for lobbying, but I sincerely doubt that the framers of the constitution would agree with the current modus operandi, where the chance of meeting a member of the House of Representative or Senator exponentially increases with the amount money with which a “citizen” is backed. Of course, by law, a legislator ought not to have his independent opinion influenced by a nice guy or gal in his or her office, who, after pleading his or her case, leaves a nice stack of checks for the up-and-coming campaign. You, as a lawyer, and I know that there is no way to prove that a vote by the legislator was influenced by this visit. But how naïve do you think we “common citizens” are Mr. Davis? The introduction of money in the lobbying system has soiled the very fabric of our democratic process. Few lobbyists and legislators have been caught and prosecuted, but I can guarantee you that this is the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Of course, the American Cancer Society and other benevolent organizations ought to be heard. But as soon as they partake in making donations, they too cloud the purity of our democratic process. This, of course, brings us to the inevitable issue of campaign funding. Without the lobby-industry campaign funding would be in serious trouble. Ideally, our chosen legislators ought to be, well, legislating. But they are not, at least, not all the time. They allot copious hours to securing their career by working on the next election, and this includes hob-knobbing with lobbyists. Allocating tax money has been tried but failed (Gee, I wonder why?) Campaign contributions ought to come from citizens, anonymously. With virtually every American having access to the (free!) internet, as the Obama campaign has proven, it is possible. Since you seem to be so idealistic as to propose a transparency law, let me take a stab at it: I propose a bill where it is illegal for a lobbyist to contribute anything to a congressman. While we are at it: Term limits for our congressmen. Unfortunately, I am doubtful that our democratic process will be restored, for any improvement would be detrimental to ones who could repair it. Regards, Paulus E. Medina, Ohio