edgarblythe
 
  0  
Reply Sat 3 Aug, 2019 07:00 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

OK.

You make the error of thinking a progressive president will think and act as I say, when in fact I don't speak for anybody but myself.
blatham
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 3 Aug, 2019 07:10 pm
@edgarblythe,
I understand that, Edgar.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Aug, 2019 05:34 am
@blatham,
It has been ruined. There is a tidy group of people who’ve coalesced around a willing candidate, in a last ditch effort to return it to a semblance of what it was before the dive into greed—and push it toward what it has never been in respect to racial and economic equity.

After reading the manifesto of the El Paso murderer, I can see there’s a smaller but quite serious group in direct opposition to us.

Anyway, re your conversation with Edgar around money and corruption in politics: https://represent.us/action/5-facts-lobbyists/

1. Lobbyists raise gobs of money for elected officials

The average senator has to pull in more than $14,000 dollars every single day, just to stay in office. One of the easiest ways to raise that kind of cash is to turn to lobbyists, who make big donations and organize swanky fundraisers for elected officials in order to buy influence for their clients.

“You can’t take a congressman to lunch for $25 and buy him a steak. But you can take him to a fundraising lunch and not only buy him that steak, but give him $25,000 extra and call it a fundraiser.” – Former lobbyist Jack Abramoff

Here’s how it works. Let’s say you’re a big bank. You want to buy influence with a senator on the banking committee so he’ll vote your way on an upcoming bill. The easiest way would be to just give $100,000 directly to the senator’s reelection campaign. But alas, that would be illegal — federal law prohibits companies from making direct donations to candidates. So instead, you hire a lobbying firm.

Here’s where things get corrupt. That lobbying firm can legally organize a swanky fundraiser that brings in $100,000 for the senator’s reelection campaign. At the fundraiser, your lobbyist just happens to have a friendly chat about your feelings on banking policy with the senator’s staff.

At the end of the day, the senator is still up $100,000, he still knows exactly where the money came from, and he knows which way to vote if he wants the money to keep flowing. But this time, nobody’s broken any laws!

One recent study found that “on average, for every dollar spent on influencing politics, the nation’s most politically active corporations received $760 from the government.” That’s a 76,000% return on investment. And it works on both sides of the aisle — top lobbying firms raise big money for Republicans and Democrats at the same time.

2. Lobbyists write laws themselves

In many cases, lobbyists write our laws — literally.

For an example, look at the 2014 omnibus budget deal. Congress used the deal to secretly put taxpayers back on the hook for bank bailouts. That’s right – in 2014, our representatives repealed a law that prevented the American people from bailing out big banks that engage in risky derivatives trading. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

The New York Times reports that 70 of the 85 lines in the language that killed the derivatives bill came from a piece of model legislation drafted by Citigroup lobbyists. Yes, that Citigroup – the bank that played a major role in the 2008 crisis and also received billions of federal stimulus dollars.

The same report also revealed that “two crucial paragraphs, prepared by Citigroup in conjunction with other Wall Street banks, were copied nearly word for word.” You can even view the original documents and see how Citigroup’s lobbyists redrafted the House bill, striking out ideas they didn’t like and replacing them with ones they did. Citigroup quite literally wrote its own rules.

The members of Congress who originally backed the Citigroup-authored bill received massive amounts of money from Wall Street — likely channeled through, you guessed it, swanky fundraisers.

To be clear, this isn’t just a problem with big banks. The exact same thing happens all the time on nearly every issue. Lobbyists for the chemical industry may have authored entire portions of a bill that shuts down state-based efforts to crack down on toxic chemicals. Lobbyists for one oil company “largely wrote” a bill about drilling for fossil fuels in an environmentally-sensitive area where it had property. Sometimes lobbyists even brag about how few changes the politicians make to their work!

3. Lobbyists effectively bribe members of Congress with lucrative job offers… to become lobbyists

Lobbyists routinely offer members of Congress and their staffers lucrative jobs at their firms or their clients’ companies. These negotiations often take place while our representatives are still in office and, ostensibly, working for us, the American people. With multi-million-dollar future salaries on the line, most members of Congress are more than willing to protect the best interests of the lobbyists who will one day be their employers.

“I would say to [the Member], ‘When you’re done working on the Hill, we’d very much like you to consider coming to work for us.’ The moment I said that, we owned them. And what does that mean? Every request from our office, every request of our clients, everything that we want, they’re gonna do.” – Former lobbyist Jack Abramoff

The phenomenon of members of Congress heading off to work for lobbying firms and their clients is know as “the revolving door.” And it’s become shockingly common: in the 1970s, less than 5% of retiring legislators went on to become lobbyists. Now, half of retiring senators and a third of retiring house members do.

4. Politicians who walk through the revolving door are in for a massive raise

It’s hard to overemphasize how tempting a revolving door gig can be. Congressmen who go on to become lobbyists get, on average, a 1,452% raise. Small wonder they’re willing to throw a few votes the lobbyists’ way with that kind of money on the line.

5. And that’s just the lobbyists we know about

Thanks to loopholes in how federal law defines lobbyists, many elected officials go on to take what are effectively revolving door lobbying jobs without ever having to officially register as lobbyists. These “shadow lobbyists,” like former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) and Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA), are lobbyists in everything but name, and they’re certainly paid just as well as the real thing. Researchers estimate that there’s actually twice as much lobbying as what’s publicly disclosed — making the business of influencing politicians a $7 billion industry.
blatham
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 4 Aug, 2019 07:50 am
@Lash,
That's a very good round-up of the systemic problems related to the corrupting role of money in US politics. Anyone who follows the subject in any serious way understands this is the situation. And if there is a fundamental premise in
your (or Edgar's or anyone else's) worldview that a new and broad consensus on the need for serious change is necessary for any such change to come about, I and many, many others are in total agreement. That's probably the key value in what Sanders is and has been doing. We need that voice and that integrity. We need such a movement. Sanders is a positive influence.

But it does not follow that therefore everyone else is some degree of evil or that Sanders is the singular individual who can bring about such a change.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Aug, 2019 08:03 am
@blatham,
If you look at a list of congress members, how much they receive from lobbyists and corporations and millionaires/billionaires, compare that information to those congress members’ voting records, and if you consider that info dispassionately, I believe you’d change your opinion about that last statement.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Aug, 2019 08:53 am
There is but one reason a person bribes and but one reason one accepts bribes.
Lash
 
  2  
Reply Sun 4 Aug, 2019 10:06 am
Bernie spoke yesterday—a lot. This is but one thread about the shooting, but he’s leading a charge against McConnell for intentionally refusing to allow a gun safety bill to proceed through the process. It’s already passed the House.
___________________________
Bernie Sanders
@BernieSanders
·
14h
Another mass shooting, another horrific day for America.

Multiple news organizations have reported the gunman shared a racist, anti-immigrant manifesto. If true, let us be clear: this would be yet another white nationalist domestic terror attack. 1/
1.1K
6K
29.7K

Bernie Sanders
@BernieSanders
·
14h
After every tragedy the Senate, intimidated by the NRA’s power, does nothing. This must change.

We need a president and congress that listen to Americans, not the ideology of a right-wing extremist organization.

We must pass common sense gun safety legislation. 2/
127
1.3K
7.4K

Bernie Sanders
@BernieSanders
·
14h
We must come together to reject this dangerous and growing culture of bigotry espoused by Trump and his allies.

Instead of wasting money putting children in cages, we must seriously address the scourge of violent bigotry and domestic terrorism. 3/
158
1.8K
11.2K

Bernie Sanders
@BernieSanders
We must treat this violent racism like the security threat that it is. That means investing in law enforcement resources to combat the growing population of white nationalists who are engaging in violence. 4/4
edgarblythe
 
  0  
Reply Sun 4 Aug, 2019 10:59 am
Bernie is correct, but the stonewalling and hand wringing continues.
hightor
 
  0  
Reply Sun 4 Aug, 2019 11:25 am
@edgarblythe,
What do you do in those cases where a particular corporation is a major employer in a congressman's district? It can be virtual political suicide. In these cases, refusing a donation merely gives your opponent, who might very well be even more opportunistic and venal, access to corporate campaign funding at your expense. I'm not saying this is a good situation — personally I support public financing of elections and addressing the Citizen's United decision through legislation (which isn't likely to happen in my lifetime) — but I think we have to look more carefully at individual situations case by case. Who's really doing the bidding of a corporate sponsor and who's someone who just happens to be filling a seat which tends to receive corporate cash as a matter of course? Corporations can write off various donations and don't always ask or expect quid pro quo. Yeah, I know, they usually do but just having accepted a donation is not in itself proof of corruption.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Aug, 2019 01:31 pm
@hightor,
There is no rigid answer in such cases. A conscientious person would do some homework and decide the case on its own merits. Which has little effect on what I have written about bribes.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Aug, 2019 10:29 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
he's leading a charge against McConnell for intentionally refusing to allow a gun safety bill to proceed through the process.

This Sanders creep quite simply hates civil liberties.


@BernieSanders wrote:
After every tragedy the Senate, intimidated by the NRA's power, does nothing. This must change.
We need a president and congress that listen to Americans, not the ideology of a right-wing extremist organization.
We must pass common sense gun safety legislation.

Sorry Sanders. Americans refuse to let our civil liberties be violated for your entertainment.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Aug, 2019 10:30 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
Bernie is correct,

To try to violate people's civil liberties for fun?

No. He isn't.
Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Mon 5 Aug, 2019 03:39 am
@oralloy,
Not for fun. To save lives, including your own.
oralloy
 
  3  
Reply Mon 5 Aug, 2019 03:42 am
@Olivier5,
Banning pistol grips on rifles will not save a single life.

The only reason why this Sanders creep wants to ban pistol grips on rifles is because he thinks that it is fun to violate people's civil liberties.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Aug, 2019 03:52 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
The only reason why this Sanders creep wants to ban pistol grips on rifles is because he thinks that it is fun to violate people's civil liberties.

You know and I know that this is a lie.
oralloy
 
  3  
Reply Mon 5 Aug, 2019 04:03 am
@Olivier5,
Nonsense. If the motivation for "banning pistol grips on rifles" is anything other than the joy that creeps like Sanders get from violating people's civil liberties, then what is that alternative motivation?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  -4  
Reply Mon 5 Aug, 2019 07:47 am
@Lash,
You should post this list you've seen.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 5 Aug, 2019 07:50 am
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
There is but one reason a person bribes and but one reason one accepts bribes.
Your use of "bribes" begs the question. I made donations to Obama and Clinton. Obviously there were general outcomes I wished to see follow from my financial support. Were those bribes?
edgarblythe
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 5 Aug, 2019 07:53 am
@blatham,
Now that's silly. You aren't a fracker or gun lobby, paying hundreds of thousands here and hundreds of thousands there.
blatham
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 5 Aug, 2019 07:54 am
@hightor,
Quote:
What do you do in those cases where a particular corporation is a major employer in a congressman's district? It can be virtual political suicide. In these cases, refusing a donation merely gives your opponent, who might very well be even more opportunistic and venal, access to corporate campaign funding at your expense.
Indeed. And there's this...
Quote:
The candidate who spends the most money usually wins
How strong is the association between campaign spending and political success? For House seats, more than 90 percent of candidates who spend the most win. From 2000 through 2016, there was only one election cycle where that wasn’t true: 2010. “In that election, 86 percent of the top spenders won,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group that tracks campaign fundraising and spending.
538
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.38 seconds on 11/27/2024 at 09:39:21