American Lobby Groups Need to Disappear [OpEd]Comments on:

By: Kyle Brady

Kyle Brady — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 05:08:15 +0000

Or corporations doing so overtly now, thanks to the Supreme Court.

And even if all of the lobbyists are for business purposes, that's still wrong – look at the healthcare or financial overhaul and tell me that's not a mess because of them.

–Kyle

By: EJ

EJ — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 01:16:13 +0000

It's difficult to believe that all lobbying entities are for business purposes. It seems with enough money, one could theoretically buy our politicians, that includes foreign governments pursuing their own agenda using our resources, which includes our men and women in service.

By: Kyle Brady

Kyle Brady — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:56:53 +0000

a) I realize that some lobbying is good, but it'd be significantly more difficult to outlaw "bad lobbying" than "lobbying" in general, and in this case it might just be better to do without completely.

b) I also realize it will never get past the lobbys. But the trick here, which I suggest elsewhere for Congressionally-tricky legislation, is to use an Executive Order from the President. He'd have to be careful exactly what it says, but its possible.

c) Lobbyists are now required to register themselves, along with how much and to who they give yearly - gifts, cash, donations, everything. And a reaction is that some of them have turned from lobby organizations to other types (there isn't a name for them yet, so far as I'm aware) that pretend to have highminded goals, but continue the same behaviors. So while banning them may drive them underground, that's not necessarily a bad thing - we're not running a war of extermination, just simply betterment.

--Kyle

By: rickweber

rickweber — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:07:00 +0000

I agree with you. When the AMA takes a stand, it's a reasonable reaction to oppose it. The AMA has waffled on the public option and most recently (as I understand it) decided to support Obama's "reforms" (bunny quotes because much of what he wants is essentially an extension of the failing medicare systems).

Two problems: Some lobbying is good (letters to congress from grass roots organizations or individuals. I recommend Not Yours to Give, a short essay by Davy Crockett, available at http://fee.org/nff/not-yours-to-give/).
And, outlawing lobbying will never get past the lobbyists; even if it did, it would likely reappear in another (likely less efficient) form. Rent-seeking occurs because it's worth while for those who do it. When drugs were made illegal, we saw some dangerous unintended consequences. Making lobbying illegal would surely have unintended consequences. We can hope that one consequence is that businesses spend less time looking for handouts and more time producing. This seems unlikely to me given the great potential for wealth redistribution through gov't.

By: David

David — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:13:18 +0000

Now, the next step is to publicly expose and embarrass those who are being influenced by these lobbyists that are trying to kill our health care.

By: Tj

Tj — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:26:35 +0000

Great OpEd.

By: Kyle Brady

Kyle Brady — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:13:58 +0000

Agreed.

–Kyle

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:08:37 +0000

I agree with with most of this. I would just like to emphasize that it's not just corporate lobbyists who are the problem but all lobbyists. As an example, just about anyone who can add two and two together has known for decades that Social Security is a program headed for disaster once
the Boomers reach retirement age in mass, yet it remains politically unnassailable thanks in large part to the AARP.

Any program that puts the interests of select groups ahead of the general public is a corruption of democracy.