Your Congressman Takes Bribes

[Twalbert]

Would you walk away from $500,000 a year to work to make America a better place? Jimmy Williams did.

Williams, now the Executive Directory of Get Money Out, is the lobbyist-turned-activist whose conscience drove him to partner up with MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan in an attempt to save America from itself.

Source: Your Congressman Takes Bribes | Benzinga

 

[Truthmatters]

Looks like you have been targeted by the right here on the rep side.

Dont think anything of it, it means nothing.

Yes the money needs to be heaved out of the process or we will lose this country

 

[konradv]

Would you walk away from $500,000 a year to work to make America a better place? Jimmy Williams did.

Williams, now the Executive Directory of Get Money Out, is the lobbyist-turned-activist whose conscience drove him to partner up with MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan in an attempt to save America from itself.

Source: Your Congressman Takes Bribes | Benzinga

When posting on this topic, always remember to include this url. They're not going to listen to us, unless steps are taken to lessen the influence of money.

Get Money Out

 

[Katzndogz]

The influence of money is lessened by demanding honesty from politicans and driving the rest out of public life forever. But then, Marion Berry wouldn't get another term!

You can't lessen the influence of money by taking money away from people who have it and distributing that money among the envious. The basic dishonesty remains. If they can't get money, they'll trade for power, or women, or conch shells.

 

[konradv]

The influence of money is lessened by demanding honesty from politicans and driving the rest out of public life forever. But then, Marion Berry wouldn't get another term!

You can't lessen the influence of money by taking money away from people who have it and distributing that money among the envious. The basic dishonesty remains. If they can't get money, they'll trade for power, or women, or conch shells.

You're conflating two different arguments. This actually allows the rich to keep more of their money. Since they'd be barred from contributing to campaigns, they'd have more money to create jobs. That's what y'all wanted, right?

 

[Mad Scientist]

Looks like you have been targeted by the right here on the rep side.

Dont think anything of it, it means nothing.

Yes the money needs to be heaved out of the process or we will lose this country

Yet you always call for ever larger gov't and regulations that are causing the problem you are always complaining about. The lobbyists only go to where the money is.

If gov't were small and the people wealthy THEY WOULD LOBBY US!

 

[Katzndogz]

The influence of money is lessened by demanding honesty from politicans and driving the rest out of public life forever. But then, Marion Berry wouldn't get another term!

You can't lessen the influence of money by taking money away from people who have it and distributing that money among the envious. The basic dishonesty remains. If they can't get money, they'll trade for power, or women, or conch shells.

You're conflating two different arguments. This actually allows the rich to keep more of their money. Since they'd be barred from contributing to campaigns, they'd have more money to create jobs. That's what y'all wanted, right?

Dishonest politicians will find some way of getting it. What you are suggesting is to stop dishonesty by eliminating a financial incentive which leaves the dishonesty completely in place.

 

[konradv]

The influence of money is lessened by demanding honesty from politicans and driving the rest out of public life forever. But then, Marion Berry wouldn't get another term!

You can't lessen the influence of money by taking money away from people who have it and distributing that money among the envious. The basic dishonesty remains. If they can't get money, they'll trade for power, or women, or conch shells.

You're conflating two different arguments. This actually allows the rich to keep more of their money. Since they'd be barred from contributing to campaigns, they'd have more money to create jobs. That's what y'all wanted, right?

Dishonest politicians will find some way of getting it. What you are suggesting is to stop dishonesty by eliminating a financial incentive which leaves the dishonesty completely in place.

What's the payoff for dishonesty, if grubbing for money is taken out of the system? Are you saying they're dishonest, just to be dishonest? If that's the case, there really is no solution. Thanks for playing, but I can't give you anything but a FAIL!!!

 

[konradv]

Your Congressman takes bribes, but the Republicans would rather distract us with votes on the natinal motto!!!

 

[SigTurner]

Our political system is really a one-party plutocracy masquerading as a two-party republic.

 

[whitehall]

Everybody is a lobbiest. Would you have it any other way? Save the whales and save the earth and save the 2nd Amendment. Promote understanding for muslems, Jews, Christians and athiests. It's all lobby. Make it illegal if you want to but quit whining about it.

 

[Leweman]

So no one should be able to give money to any campaigns? What about politicians using tax payer dollars to buy votes to stay in power? How can anyone compete with that?

 

[whitehall]

The "right to petition the government" is guaranteed in the Constitution. We can't all call up our representatives or barge inbto their offices or even invite them to lunch so what do we do? We hire lobbyists like the NRA or the Sierra club to try to persuade them to do the right thing. Some politicians might be crooks and that's why the Founding Fathers gave us the option to fire them every two years.

 

[konradv]

The "right to petition the government" is guaranteed in the Constitution. We can't all call up our representatives or barge inbto their offices or even invite them to lunch so what do we do? We hire lobbyists like the NRA or the Sierra club to try to persuade them to do the right thing. Some politicians might be crooks and that's why the Founding Fathers gave us the option to fire them every two years.

That could still happen. There's nothing wrong with a lobbyist talking to a representitive, it's when money changes hands that the trouble starts.

 

[SigTurner]

The "right to petition the government" is guaranteed in the Constitution. We can't all call up our representatives or barge inbto their offices or even invite them to lunch so what do we do? We hire lobbyists like the NRA or the Sierra club to try to persuade them to do the right thing. Some politicians might be crooks and that's why the Founding Fathers gave us the option to fire them every two years.

That could still happen. There's nothing wrong with a lobbyist talking to a representitive, it's when money changes hands that the trouble starts.

Of course, the money does not usually exchange hands directly, it is filtered through the party boss and then into the campaign treasury of the poltician being lobbied.

This is the problem with campaign financing. It is indirect bribery, though bribery nontheless, and it effectively squelches the voice of the people as it amplifies the voice of the lobbyist.

The solution is quite simple: Each candidate should be allotted a fixed stippend of campaign funding from a single, non-partisan treasury that is funded exclusively by public tax dollars. No private contributions allowed (and before anybody says it, we should thus amend the Constitution).

 

[whitehall]

The "right to petition the government" is guaranteed in the Constitution. We can't all call up our representatives or barge inbto their offices or even invite them to lunch so what do we do? We hire lobbyists like the NRA or the Sierra club to try to persuade them to do the right thing. Some politicians might be crooks and that's why the Founding Fathers gave us the option to fire them every two years.

That could still happen. There's nothing wrong with a lobbyist talking to a representitive, it's when money changes hands that the trouble starts.

Maybe money does "change hands" but that really ain't what it's about. Bribery is illegal. The fake outrage is about the money lobbyists legally spend in making politicians aware of tens of thousands of issues. Americans chip in their hard earned dollars to get the ear of a politician and lobbyists are licensed and there are rules they have to follow. The issue is phony.

 

[SigTurner]

Maybe money does "change hands" but that really ain't what it's about. Bribery is illegal. The fake outrage is about the money lobbyists legally spend in making politicians aware of tens of thousands of issues. Americans chip in their hard earned dollars to get the ear of a politician and lobbyists are licensed and there are rules they have to follow. The issue is phony.

From a moral and practical perspective:

There is legal bribery, and then there is illegal bribery, and both amount to the same thing.

The issue is certainly not "phony." Indeed, it is anything but phony. What is phony is calling one act of bribery legitimate and another illegitimate for no other reason than legal loopholes, when the effect is still the same.

 

[whitehall]

Maybe money does "change hands" but that really ain't what it's about. Bribery is illegal. The fake outrage is about the money lobbyists legally spend in making politicians aware of tens of thousands of issues. Americans chip in their hard earned dollars to get the ear of a politician and lobbyists are licensed and there are rules they have to follow. The issue is phony.

From a moral and practical perspective:

There is legal bribery, and then there is illegal bribery, and both amount to the same thing.

The issue is certainly not "phony." Indeed, it is anything but phony. What is phony is calling one act of bribery legitimate and another illegitimate for no other reason than legal loopholes, when the effect is still the same.

No, "Illegal bribery" is illegal. There is no such thing as "legal bribery". Some ignorant pop-culture or union educated Americans rely on emotion instead of rational thought to figure these things out. The Sierra Club is a worthwhile organization that saves the world but the NRA is evil or vice versey. You can't assume that lobbyists are criminals just because you have an emotional attachment to an issue. Make a complaint if you think you need to blow the whistle on a politician but the lobbyist issue is phony.

 

[SigTurner]

No, "Illegal bribery" is illegal. There is no such thing as "legal bribery". Some ignorant pop-culture or union educated Americans rely on emotion instead of rational thought to figure these things out. The Sierra Club is a worthwhile organization that saves the world but the NRA is evil or vice versey. You can't assume that lobbyists are criminals just because you have an emotional attachment to an issue. Make a complaint if you think you need to blow the whistle on a politician but the lobbyist issue is phony.

So, you're saying that if some entity in the private sector makes a direct cash payment to a specific public official in order to procur a lucrative contract for the provision of widgets to the government at three times their fair market value, it is "illegal bribery" but if the same private entity employs a lobbying firm to make a direct cash payment to the party boss who then deposits a portion of the payment into the campaign chest of the same public official as a laundered general political contribution, with the unwritten (perhaps, not even directly spoken) understanding that said public official will direct said contract to said private entity in exchange for said contribution, it is ....

...what?

Please answer the question, if you don't mind, because if this is not bribery I do not know what it is.

 

[whitehall]

No, "Illegal bribery" is illegal. There is no such thing as "legal bribery". Some ignorant pop-culture or union educated Americans rely on emotion instead of rational thought to figure these things out. The Sierra Club is a worthwhile organization that saves the world but the NRA is evil or vice versey. You can't assume that lobbyists are criminals just because you have an emotional attachment to an issue. Make a complaint if you think you need to blow the whistle on a politician but the lobbyist issue is phony.

So, you're saying that if some entity in the private sector makes a direct cash payment to a specific public official in order to procur a lucrative contract for the provision of widgets to the government at three times their fair market value, it is "illegal bribery" but if the same private entity employs a lobbying firm to make a direct cash payment to the party boss who then deposits a portion of the payment into the campaign chest of the same public official as a laundered general political contribution, with the unwritten (perhaps, not even directly spoken) understanding that said public official will direct said contract to said private entity in exchange for said contribution, it is ....

...what?

Please answer the question, if you don't mind, because if this is not bribery I do not know what it is.

It's assumption piled on assumption. If you used the same logic on the "health care law" you would be busy for years and years. The point is that lobbyists are regulated by federal law. The issue is phony.