I can’t stand it any longer! The hypocrisy and demagoguery of the holier-than-thou factions that attempt to paint “lobbyists†as the scourge of a democratic and free society are enough to piss off the Pope.
A recent poll suggests that an overwhelming majority of the Montana electorate supports this year’s ballot initiative to reign in those yucky scoundrels. Newspaper articles and our charismatic governor continually characterize elected officials as “representing all the people†and lobbyists as representing “one special interest groupâ€. How noble! How philosophical! How nauseating!
Lobbyists are not a “necessary evil†– they are a necessary ELEMENT in a representative democracy.
Think for a minute: “An elected official represents all the peopleâ€. Wanna see half of the people in this country go nucking futs – tell them George Bush represents them. Get real! An elected official represents the majority of the voters – not people! – of the district from which he was elected (except for the President and the Electoral College thing, but let’s leave that alone for this discussion – the point’s still valid). In this country, that often means that more citizens in any given district did not vote for the winner as voted for him. Every district is made up of myriads of folks with a plethora of differing opinions on different issues. There is no way any one elected official can begin to represent all of them all!
Lobbyists, on the other hand, generally do represent a single issue, group, organization, or – oh horrors! – company – a “Special Interest Groupâ€. It is their job to constantly watch what is going on in Congress or the Legislature and to make sure that the elected officials know how their particular group feels about a given piece of legislation. The alternative would be for every single citizen to be in Washington DC and/or Helena every day that congress or the legislature is in session, attending every hearing and testifying on every bill that could conceivably affect them one way or the other. Just think – 900,000 Montanans in Helena every other winter for three months. Mind-boggling? You bet your bippy! More to the point – after spending all that time tracking every piece of legislation, preparing and presenting testimony, lobbying as it were, for or against whatever issues float your boat – when would you have time to earn a living, raise your kids, blog your brains out, or whatever it is that you do to fill the days? No matter how you feel about any issue – if some level of government can regulate it, tax it, fund it, or otherwise impact it – there will be highly paid professionals out there bird-dogging it on behalf of their clients. Thank God. Otherwise we’d have our elected officials representing only those dedicated citizens who have the time and inclination to contact them.
The recent uproar and folderol over lobbyists and members of congress should generate some honest debate about how our system works and what, if anything, needs to be done. The demagogic value judgment that lobbyists are inherently evil is counter-productive to a healthy and representative democratic government.
Another thing lobbyists do is bring some expertise to the discussion. Like it or not there is no way that any representative can look at all of the ramifications of any given law. Lobbyists from both sides will approach representatives with their side of the issue. It is then up to the representative to decide which side has the best case or to use some issues from both side to modify the law.
Whether we like it or not we as citizens do not have the time nor the inclination to research every law that comes before congress. Neither do our representatives.
It is also not possible to know about inequities in our present laws that hurt the free flow of trade. That is why lobbyists are needed to inform them of these inequities.
Plus both sides use them. The only difference is which lobbyists are listened to by which side. I think the liberals biggest problem with lobbyists is that they don’t get to choose which ones the conservatives listen to.
THANK YOU for explaining to the liberals how the system works! I think Governor Schweitzer has been walking around the Capitol with his eyes closed. How else could he support the red herring that is I-153?
Thank you both for your positive comments. I notice that “the usual suspects” haven’t responded yet. Probably too complex a concept for them. Tee hee.
As to the question about the governor’s position on I-153: I, too, have been mightily perplexed about this. After all, those most likely to be impacted by this initiative will be his own cronies who are left looking for employment when the gov moves on.
I have come to two possible conclusions:
1.) Governor Schweitzer really doesn’t care about anything except his own short term gains. Attacking lobbyists is always a safe political bet. He just wants to claim I-153 as a win.
2.) The governor realizes that, in order to move his pet coal gasification projects forward, he will have to neutralize the environmental lobby by giving them something for backing off. This initiative allows the governor the ability to assure MEIC and the rest of them that none of them will be expected to hire Hal Harper when he leaves office.
Ha ha! I think you are right on both counts!
I am sure the ‘usual suspects’ will start ‘commenting’ as soon as they see traffic is rising.
They are probabley hoping, if ignored you will go away.
I know the author here, pretty well actually, and “going away quietly” is not her style. She’s much more ‘walk softly/big stick’ than me, tho.
I’m very impressed that she’s found a place for her voice, and that so many are catching on so quickly. It should be fun to see how the spectrum of people react, as I happen to know that she’s not all party-line bombast and when they least expect it could easily puncture other egos as well. This blog could easily become politics fireworks for everyone. Foolishness and stupidity are not well tolerated, which is always fun!
Nice article, and good points all around.
The problem that I’d point out is that the division between lobbyist and legislative process is removed completely when people who work to promote something full-time are elected to represent a district. The big losers there are those that find that their voice has been traded by their party in exchange for someone else’s agenda. It shouldn’t happen, but apparently does. If Governor S wants to make a difference, he should look to his own party first and perhaps have a chat with Mary Caferro. Hmmmm?
Ahem. Thank you for bringing up a very important and timely point. For any who don’t understand the reference in the previous comment: Mary Caferro is the incumbent in Montana’s House District 80. In her real life she is the Executive Director (paid lobbyist) of WEEL. During the 2005 session she introduced five bills – all of which directly supported WEEL’s agenda. Whether or not these were good and/or necessary pieces of legislation is not relevant – fewer than 15% of her constituents were represented by her legislation. That’s not a good thing for our system of government.
I think it is beyond ironic that the same group of people who would become instantaneously apoplectic if Jack Abramoff were to run for Congress have absolutely no problem endorsing Mary Caferro in her reelection bid. Seems like a bit of hypocrisy to rail against former government employees becoming lobbyists and support having active lobbyists becoming legislators.
I think we are all a member of some “special interest”. Whether you are an NRA member, a union member, a member of the retired community or any other group; your group should have the right to have your voice heard in the halls of government. Lobbyists are not innately evil. They can be a source of good information to legislators and perform a service in making government work for the people.
The problem is in the weak rules and some people’s willingness to bend them for their greed. Neither party has a monopoly on that and I doubt you could stop this human failing with simple legislation. Open and accountable govenment is the only combating force.
Which now brings us to the part where we look for, and at, solutions. “Open and accountable” is a great sound bite – how do you propose we achieve it?
The floor is open for discussion…
Feingold-McCain was a leap in the wrong direction. It has created more problems and I don’t think it has solved any. Lobyists like campaign reform is nearly impossible to regulate.
Making laws against money giving is like making laws against guns. People keep forgetting that some where in there a person has to make a decision for good or evil. That will never stop no matter how many laws you make. But prison terms and fines will deter it some. You have to make someone responsible for their actions.
Agreed – McCain-Feingold is a joke – and a bad one at that. And taxpayer funded campaigns is an even worse idea.
Chew on this…
What about having all contributions funneled through political parties at the various levels – federal, state, local? No direct contributions to candidates or individual campaigns and no limits on the amount of any contributions, but total disclosure on contributors and all contributions to PACs or whatever have to be COMPLETELY voluntary (i.e. no portion of “union dues” can be automatically converted to political contributions). Distribution of funds needs to be done by the membership of each party entity.
One benefit is that there is no direct candidate/contributor connection.
What do you think?
Basket case;
I think I hear the democratic party having a major heart attack. I have already argued on another site about what a poor idea government funded campaigns would be. The other person being liberal of course couldn’t see my point.
I also find it interesting that belonging to a voluntary group (NRA) that uses it’s donation to support canidates is somehow a bad idea but a union supporting a canidate with involuntary contributions is somehow different in liberal’s view. I am sure that the party being donated to has nothing to do with it (/sarc).
Voluntary donations are ok. But I am not sure about not putting a limit on it. After all a little known secret the democrats don’t want people to know about is that they get much of their donations from the wealthy few, Soros comes to mind.
Yeah – don’t you love the hypocrisy?
From my perspective limiting donations is no different from limiting free speech. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to give $10,000 to my favorite candidate if I want (understanding it would immediately result in my husband’s arrest for justifiable homicide!)? As long as everybody knows where the money came from, what’s the problem. Fersure my candidate’s opponents will be watching to see if I get any special favors, right – and will certainly point that out in future elections.
I think the limits are unconstitutional.
basket case;
I think the limits are unconstitutional.
I think you would have a hard time proving that with SCOTUS, at least till another judge or two is replaced.
On Financing:
I don’t know that I find as many problems with public-funded races as I do with non-contacted, party-diluted races. The idea that all money should go to a central coffer and not directly the candidate from some district is about as wrong as it can get. That effectively means that you’re not ever getting to show that your representative represents you.
When you donate to a candidate you are endorsing so that they can get out in front of other people who, hopefully, will endorse them as well. That’s not the same as the vote, it’s more of the “yeah, you’ll work for me” stage of the game. Votes are different, and certainly important, but the capital to run a campaign is important as well.
If, however, the only people who can donate to a candidate have to live more than 55% of their lives in the district of their candidate, then you’d have real reform. If Soros is only able to get money from Streisand because they are neighbors, more power to him.
When you analyze the system, the idea of having the centralized parties do the money-
launderinghandling would allow those rich few in both parties to exert more control over the entire process. You see, when Babs gives out a few hundred grand to the dems and then says “You will make sure that Soros gets re-elected because 90% of my money will go to his campaign or you’ll get nothing” and BAM! everything for the little-guy is lost.But that could never happen, right? That’d be like a republican snogging a page – unbelievable.
First: “But that could never happen, right? That’d be like a republican snogging a page – unbelievable.”
Who knew? But as long as Republicans are people anything can happen — and as long as people are Democrats we can’t imagine what could and does happen!!!!!!
Your point on indirect vs. direct contributions is a good one – I defer on that, with the caveat that all contributors to an organization must be identified along with organization. Hiding behind a PAC or 527 is not a good thing for the political process. I don’t, however, accept your contention about contributions being limited to “neighbors”. Sure, I like the example you use to make your point, but as long as many of the issues affecting us cross the arbitrary political boundaries, our interests, and therefore our support for those who represent our interests, should not be arbitrarily limited.
No lobbyist isn’t a four letter word. Convicted is however. And don’t forget that Burns IS part of the investigation and he has given 6 figures so far to his legal team.
For a guy who’s worked in stock yards for so long, you’d think he’d know how to keep the shit off of him.
Follow the stench,
Californiamontanacan
Californiamontanacan:
Again, I have to mention the deficiencies in either your native intelligence or your education: “convicted” has – count them – 9 letters, not four.
You might also want to check out the US Constitution and the whole concept of “innocent until PROVEN guilty”. Please get back to me when you find the part that correlates the cost of legal defense to relative guilt — because Bill Clinton has already spent well over $10 million on his legal fees. Using your logic, the Clintons should be swinging right alongside Saddam!
I can’t quite tell from your moniker if you are from California and now reside in Montana or vice-versa. Either way – Nancy Pelosi called – she wants you back.
Bye!
WTF?! Convicted has more than 4 letters? Shit house mouse I/m just no darn good at this blogging stuff. I never said Burns was proven guilty did I? But he will be. HE TOOK MONEY FROM A FELON ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS. Unless I’ve been duped by the dang liberal media again…. maybe they made this all up.
I’m from CA… the FIRST best place. What’s happening to MT happened there in the 50’s. Lifes a bitch eh?
Best of luck with the Turrets,
Your pal Californiamontanacan
Duped by the media?!? How could that possibly happen? I would be shocked- shocked! – I tell you – if such a thing could be conceivable! (Damn – there I go again – raising the price of sarcasm by draining the supply.)
Well, pal – I was thinking of challenging you to a battle of wits, but I can tell you’re unarmed.
I’ll wait for someone with more entertainment potential.
Toodles!
That’s what I thought.
And who the fuck decided to dress Jack in that black fedora? It really ruined the shot……someone call wardrobe….. I demand an answer!
Sorry that you wre one of those kids in high school,
Californiamontanacan
“Well, pal – I was thinking of challenging you to a battle of wits, but I can tell you’re unarmed.”
No one said that lines from the Pink Panther were fair game!
Oh oh, 9:30. Time to make a donation to PETA. Gotta go!
-Californiamonatancan
………….KATO?????????
-Californiamontanacan
Sorry – wrong answer! But thanks for playing.
Come on man, I need your help. What news from today is real and what news is a product of the liberal media? I was hoping I could borrow your secret decoder ring. Don’t be so coy with that analysis of yours.
Keep to the right except when passing,
-Californiamontanacan
CAMT’n
Boy, you just can’t get any of your wild accusations right. Abramoff was not a felon till convicted. Since his donations to Burns were before the conviction then none of the donations were from a convicted felon.
But thanks for playing “Guilt by Association” the same people who brought you “Propaganda 101”. Sorry you lost and only get the luggage consolation prize.
It seems that the culture of corruption was not a Evil Republican problem but in fact belongs to the Democrat Party in Montana. First we have the Child who pretends to be Governor using the public payroll to gain a majority in the State Senate. Then we have him getting his brothers wife a job with the Democrat Attorney General. Then we have the Majority leader in the Senate getting a $60,000 a year job thus giving the governor and not the people a strong voice in that body. Now we have the non-elected Senator from Helena who was apointed to her job and not elected by the people with a payback peice of legislation no doubt authored by the dominate force on the Lewis and Clark County Commission which is the same commission that put her into the State Senate. It is time for the media to blow the whistle on these Chicago Style political tactics and let the people know what is happening to the political process in Montana
On a Local note the City of Helena City Commission will be considering two proposed referendums during the month of March. The first one calls for the United States to withdraw its forces from Iraq and provide funding for that. The second referendum is as follows:
“The Citizens of Helena, Montana in the United States of America, hereby urge the Congress of the United States of America to fund our military forces totally and without conditions so that they will not be deprived of the tools they need, or the manpower needed by them to give the people of the United States of America the protection they need in this time of war and be able to attain victory, which is the tradition of the United States of America and the State of Montana. The danger is too great to do otherwise”
On April 18, 2007 the Helena City Commission will consider moving a resolution forward to a April 23,2007 Commission Meeting for public comments and hopefully a vote to put the resolution in the form of a referendum on the November 6th ballot. After working with the Commissioners the agreed upon resolution states:
“The Citizens Of Helena, Montana in the United States of America, hereby urge the Congress of the United States of America to fund our military forces fully and without conditions in the global war on terror so that they will not be deprived of the tools or the manpower they need to overcome the forces dedicated to our distruction anywhere in the world, therby giving us, the people of the United States of America, the protection we need so we can survive as a free nation.”
Your comments in support of this resolution would be greatly appreciated at the Commission Meetings by those of us involved in drafting the resolution and those protecting us from radical Islam.
On May 21, 2007 the Helena City Commission voted to place the referendum on fully funding the United States Military in our war on terror on the November 6th ballot. I wish to thank the two City Commissioners and the Mayor who supported the referendum and I realize that their support of placing the referendum on the November ballot does not mean that they endorse the text of the referendum. Two City of Helena Commissioners chose not to support putting the referendum on the ballot and in effect chose to deny the citizens on Helena their right to express themselves on this issue. Commissioner Cartwright and Commissioner Otzinger seem to feel that they speak for the City of Helena on matters that they have not been elected to decide and have no ability to determine. Thankfully the majority of the Commission believes in the democratic process and the rights of the people to address their government. I would hope that in the future, attempts by a small minority to set themselves above the voters will be rejected by the voters and the democratic process will prevail.
The Governor continues to push the use of ethanol and other forms of agricultural based energy as a means to reduce this countries need for foreign oil. He fails to understand that there is a realationship between the use of crops for fuel and the cost of food. the price of corn for human consumption and for feed for livestock is increasing rapidly as our farmers and ranchers produce more product for use as fuel and less to feed the people and animals in this country. Those of us who are on fixed incomes are feeling the brunt of the shift in agricultural production in the supermarket. Alternative sources for energy are needed but the results of a shift in the use of these sources has to be evaluated in light of what the effect will be on those who can least afford to adjust to increased costs. Tell the Governor to think thru the consiquences of his programs
and not increase the hardships of those who are in need.
During a recent trip past a local college we noticed that there were a bunch of college students involved in a rally for Ron Paul who is running for President as a Republican. We were struck by the fact that there were no College Republicans involved in the rally and that we were able to identify a number of College Democrats who were participating. This along with the fact that more than 50% of Americans tell us that they would not vote for Hillary Clinton under any conditions makes us feel that Democrats are attempting to induce Ron Paul to run as a independent and much as happened in the 90’s take votes away from the Republican candidate in order to allow Hillary to become President with less that a majority of the vote. It will be interesting to see if this is the Democrat game plan for 2008.