→ STOP SOPA BEFORE IT DESTROYS THE WEB ←

>Why are you ok with lobbying ?
Easy access of expertise in an environment that predicates and (arguably) thrives on the competition of interests.

>In my book, lobbying is another word for corruption.
Just as it is with most people who only have a surface understanding of the federal government. That's like claiming capitalism is another word for slavery.

>Lobbying is a good way to finance political projects and governement actions ?
Lobbying isn't for financing political projects. That's what Congress passes every year, usually upon the recommendation of the Executive agency.

>Are you really ok that your representative, even your president, are elected only because they promise stuff to powerful corporation ?
[citation needed]
You obviously haven't done much, if any, research before posting.

an answer would be great

well the french congressman would call the police (most of them anyway).

In the US we've formed a party of those who didn't call a cop when the bribe was offered. We call it the GOP.

>>709427
Sorry if i'm wrong but it's common knowledge that every presidential election need a shitload of money to work. This money isn't entirely from the candidat or his political party but from "contributions" by "sympathisant" (a.k.a big corporations).

If not regulate, contributions ARE corruption. So that's a start.

Talking about expertise about lobbying... congressman are intelligent enough to seek for experts themselves, i don't think they need huge lobby to tell them what to do.

Do you really say there is no financial exchange in lobbying. I would believe if you say so but i would be really surprise because this is NOT the image reflected on the rest of the world (in Europe, at least)

>>709427

-1000000/10

So there's nothing serious people would like to say about lobbying except "nah, they're ok" ?

Who says we're OK with it?

The average American HATES it, but it's another case of politicians not giving a shit about the people to do what they want for themselves and lobbyist "contributors"

>>709555
>Sorry if i'm wrong but it's common knowledge that every presidential election need a shitload of money to work
You're confusing money = votes instead of money = distribution of message. If you did a little research in the executive race in any state, you'll find not uncommon events of the leading spender losing the election. And that's just in regards of executive elections. Hell, the last cycle in Alaska, one of the deepest red states over the last two senate elections proved this with the election of a Democrat and then the incumbent *after* she lost the primary. Both spent far less than the republican party nominee.

You disregard or are ignorant of critical context.

>contributions ARE corruption.
You're assuming contributions = control of the candidate. You ignore the fact that most major players make contributions to *all* the leading candidates. If you look at the contributor lists for Obama and McCain in 2008 you'll find a lot of duplicates.

>congressman are intelligent enough to seek for experts themselves
There was no claim otherwise, but a lot of that expertise comes from various PAC specifically created to serve those experts. That includes even non-expertise based systems such as labor.

>Do you really say there is no financial exchange in lobbying.
Wut? Are you misinterpreting what I posted or just blatantly erecting a strawman?

>Currently around 15,000 Brussels-based lobbyists (consultants, lawyers, associations, corporations, NGOs etc.) seek to influence the EU’s legislative process. Some 2,600 special interest groups have a permanent office in Brussels. Their distribution is roughly as follows: European trade federations (32%), consultants (20%), companies (13%), NGOs (11%), national associations (10%), regional representations (6%), international organizations (5%) and think tanks (1%), (Lehmann, 2003, pp iii).[18]

>>709555
Oh. And I forgot to close with the biggest error I think you're making. Confusing campaign contributions and lobbyists. The two have some overlap but are distinct two different areas of politics. Some lobbyists do function specifically for "bundling" but last time I checked that was a significantly small proportion. I doubt you could even fit into your limited perspective the non-profit lobbying firms.

>>709668
This. Americans know that "lobbying" is thinly veiled bribery. What is most infuriating for Americans, is that politicians keep doing it, in plain sight, and don't even try to hide their corruption anymore. This is one of the reasons Occupy Wall Street took to the streets.

>>709671
Sorry but it still doesn't work for me.

- So sometimes a lesser fortunate candidat can win ? How generous of you ! Still, the cost of a presidential election is absolutly ridiculous. Where does the money go ? In France it's mostly to pay bodygards and transports to travel everywhere in France. For you it's what... bribing TV for more screentime ? This should be regulated too.

- Major players make contributions to all candidats ? So they bribe ALL candidats ? Yay ! Do you really think they give this money out of generosity and except nothing in return. By definition they wouldn't do it if they didn't get what they want.

- Surely they are some organisations who just want to inform congressman about some news views they wouldn't considerate normally. But WHY there is any remuneration involve ! They're doing their jobs for the sake of the country !
Congressman should and MUST be force to refuse ANY KIND of gratifications except their official salary. Why ? Because they're political men, not businessmen. Any other kind of thinking is reckless or criminal.

>>709899
>How generous of you
Still functioning under the false impression that money = winning. It isn't a matter of generosity, aka benefit.

>Still, the cost of a presidential election is absolutly ridiculous.
Your fixation on the money blinds you to reality.

>So they bribe ALL candidats
Still functioning under the false presumption even after the evidence is presented? Your debate skills are spectacular.\

>But WHY there is any remuneration involve !
You are aware that every government, not just the US, runs on money and not just good intentions?

You asked for answers and are clearly not interested in entertaining any perspective other than your own.

Wait wait wait wait.


We hate lobbying obviously but are you honestly saying lobbying doesn't exist in Europe and other places? It's fucking everywhere, even if it's banned there will always be lobbying.

>>709709
There is lobbying in Europe, even in France... but maybe not the kind you expect. Most of them are lobby for feminism, multiculturalism (jewish lobby... not really official but really there) etc... financial lobbyin is more... sneaky.

They have tried some bold moves like Universal giving free products to congressmen just outside the building to support a law against internet piracy but it made a scandal and didn't happen again.

I'm maybe considering lobbying and election contributions the same... only because it's money from private interest to public personnality. And in both cases, it's fucking wrong.

Oh, and occupy wall street isn't fucking enough. Create some political party instead or make a revolution, but do something.

>>709671
>You ignore the fact that most major players make contributions to *all* the leading candidates. If you look at the contributor lists for Obama and McCain in 2008 you'll find a lot of duplicates.

Yeah, big companies don't care who wins, they just want to have them in their pocket once they do

If France doesn't have lobbying then how come they're turning into a Muslim country?

Check and mate, surrender monkeys.

>>710047
Because bribery and influence peddling aren't expressly prohibited, amirite? There aren't more innocuous explanations, such as contribution = access instead of contribution = control, amirite?

Is your tinfoil hat on too tight?

>>709966
What evidence ? You only said "Nah, they dont have motives to given out tons of money". That's hardly an evidence, that's trolling.

and this
> You are aware that every government, not just the US, runs on money and not just good intentions?

THIS is the reason why america is so fucked up. YES a government needs money (more that you actually give him actually...) BUT it need to come from OFFICIAL and REGULATE sources, a.k.a taxes !

Taxes seems to be an insult in amurka, but it's actually the legitimate and normal way to run a country. Population needs to know about the money their government is using, and the only legitimate way is getting it by taxes.

Raise your fucking taxes america. Not for low-class people but for big corporations. They won't dissapear or change country, they need your money too much.

>>710086
Todays system does not do what the people want, but what the money wants.

im ok with industries sending experts to talk with congressmen, im not ok with them bribing people to collect votes.

>>710097
>What evidence ?
If you can't recognize the history of voting provided, such Alaska's last two senatorial races, as evidence you are beyond the reach of reality. No formulation or selection of words and sentences that provide a reflection of the facts are going to make the slightest difference to you.

Thank you for proving you're a delusional tool too busy raging against fallacies to bother with.

US constitution guarantees an right to petition government. Talking to a congressman counts, barring other things.

DWI

Anonymous donations and a strict register of interest and meetings would help

>>710127
>Alaska. Evidence.

I've heard elections on the north pole went great too.

>>710110
So who in the US wanted to decrease the credit rating of the US and increase the tax burden? When has the federal system ever done "what people want"? With 300 million citizens you're going to have 300 million opinions. Just because the government doesn't do what YOU want doesn't mean the government isn't functioning the way it was meant to.

>>710128
Talking to congressman is ok (but need to be regulate too actually) but giving them "jobs" with gratifications is not ok.

That's simple as that

>>710158
What a well supported and thought out post you made. You explained your point so thoroughly that even Putin would believe you are omniscient.

>>710168
>So who in the US wanted to decrease the credit rating of the US
Eric Cantor, one of the reps leading the dont raise the debt ceiling charge, was actually heavily invested in a fund that was betting that Treasury bond values would drop.

>>710192
I meant as organizations, not as individuals. There are wackos and outliers within every class.

>>710201
well ok, then everyone investing in that fund.

>>710212
Which was how many people?

>>710188
You better be a troll man.

A small exemple (actually the least populate state of America, good job) hardly qualify as an evidence. And an evidence of what ? Having money doesn't MAKE you win an election ? Yes, i agree, democracy exist for that... still most of candidats try to get the more money they can.

And it's not even my point. I was talking about counterparts to accepting money from contributors. You don't give million of dollars for nothing. That's why this should be illegal.

>be a politician
either
>vote in favor of SOPA and get millions of dollars, or
>vote against, get no extra cash
What do? That's the problem with lobbying.

>>710215
a decent number of people but not a significant portion of the population.

>>710240
>A small exemple
A single citation among of list of many. I expressly stated that you could look at the voting history of ANY state and see how the biggest spender still lost. Instead of dealing with the facts you are too busy splitting hairs.

>actually the least populate state of America, good job)
Did you miss the point about "one of the deepest red states"? That one of the most republican leaning states among the fifty states decided against the republican party candidate who was the biggest spender? Twice? IN A ROW?!? Do you not understand how clearly that undermines the presumption that money = winning? In a state that makes the most return on federal dollars, something $8 federal for ever $1 in taxes paid? Alaska isn't even the least populated state, you retard. North Dakota, Wyoming and Vermont all have less population than Alaska.

>And it's not even my point.
So you're even more retarded for assuming someone else's error and running with it into deep, deep FAIL territory.

>>710271
Sounds like you're making shit up. Got a citation to support this claim of "significant"?

>>710300
No one cares whether money = winning elections, what matters is whether money = passing bills.

>>710310
>http://www.kiplinger.com/columns/fundwatch/archive/2009/fundwatch0130.htm

this article contains a list of funds that have been betting against treasury bills. it's really not that uncommon for people to bet against us.

>>710080
Not reading so much stuff about France lately, have we ?

Muslim taking over France is an american myth in place since we told you to GTFO about Iraq in 2002. Actually, arab community has no real political power, really badly representate in the government and Mulsulaman cult lead council is the creation of... Nicolas Sarkozy, christian to the bone (and incidently french president). All they have is a large community du to immegration (and no cash).