Big Business Too Powerful?

[Bird of Prey]

Big firms are too powerful, poll finds

Informed, wired citizens want greater controls


Jorge Barrera, The Ottawa Citizen

Published: Wednesday, January 02, 2008

The majority of the world's most informed, engaged and connected citizens believe large corporations have too much influence over government decisions and wield more power than governments, according to a poll conducted by Ipsos Global Public Affairs.
The survey found 74 per cent of respondents believe companies have too much influence, while 69 per cent agreed that large companies are more powerful than governments.
Most of these citizens, referred to as "intelligaged" by the pollster, back aggressive action by their governments to regulate the activities of national and multinational corporations. . . .http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=cd8a383e-787b-432e-8d7a-1ddb647210f7

Worth the read. I agree with the majority of those polled. I think big business needs to be reined in.

[William Haskins]

I think big business needs to be reined in.

how do you propose this be achieved?

[blacbird]

how do you propose this be achieved?

You can pretty much be assured that Ron Paul, in pursuit of his libertarian objectives of limited government, ain't about to tackle it.

caw

[Bird of Prey]

I disagree bbird. A return to strong states' rights would go a long way to softening big business influence on, for example, foreign policy. But I'm not really arguing for or against Ron Paul. I'm responding because you seem to take every opportunity to bring him up in context to my posts.

[William Haskins]

you have to understand, BoP, that those of us who've discussed politics with you over the past couple of years have been able to glean a fairly complete composite of your political views at a high level.

your posts in support of paul contradict your previously stated positions and ideas to a staggering degree.

you can't blame folks for noticing that and at least partially viewing what you say through that prism.

[Bird of Prey]

how do you propose this be achieved?

Restricting lobbyists. Curbing the time and money both industry and foreign lobbyists can spend courting officials. I think the country would be in better shape if we just got rid of them all, and allowed the states and their lifeblood industries to be represented through the Congress and the Senate. I would definitely disallow foreign lobbyists.

[blacbird]

you can't blame folks for noticing that and at least partially viewing what you say through that prism.

Oh, sure he can. But it's okay, I don't mind.

caw

[Bird of Prey]

you have to understand, BoP, that those of us who've discussed politics with you over the past couple of years have been able to glean a fairly complete composite of your political views at a high level.

your posts in support of paul contradict your previously stated positions and ideas to a staggering degree.

you can't blame folks for noticing that and at least partially viewing what you say through that prism.


How many times have I told you why, though. . . .

I told you that our political system is not working. It is business as usual with both the Republicans and Democrats. Paul is something of a purist which I respect. He is offering an alternative that maximizes states' rights which would break what has become a stagnant and corrupt federal mold.

If I thought he could win, he might have my vote. But at this juncture, the federal goverment has become so grotesquely enormous that I've pretty much given up on the idea that it will ever be anything but that. As a consequence, I'd rather let it slide into socialism where at least we get some benefit from it, like health care, than watch it making anymore catastrophic strides toward fascism vis a vis the greedy, elitist, warmongering Neocons. Paul doesn't have Neocon support. There's a reason. He's a mold-breaker.

[William Haskins]

Restricting lobbyists.

Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)

http://www.issues2000.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

[Bird of Prey]

Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)

http://www.issues2000.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

In context to who he is, that's not surprising. And he's certainly not alone. It's the limited federal government that matters when examining his positions.

Add: But you didn't ask me what Ron Paul would do, you asked me what I would do.

[William Haskins]

this is true. so how would you go about banning foreign lobbyists?

[robeiae]

I would guess that this survey could have been conducted anytime in the past 400 or so years (in the right countries of course) and it would have gotten pretty similar results.

Now, that's not to say there isn't a problem and that nothing can/should be done. But the whole lobbyist angle seems overstated, to me anyway. That's been going on forever, as well. The place to fix the reach of "big business" is in the laws that govern corporate structures.

[Joe270]

Would union lobbyists be banned as well?

[robeiae]

Would union lobbyists be banned as well?Yes. Also, Confederate ones...

[William Haskins]

keep in mind, from a legal, practical and constitutional standpoint, it's going to be tough. the two most (so-called) progressive candidates, obama and edwards, have made much of a vow to ban lobbyists ----- from their administrations...

it's almost laughable.

almost.

[Bird of Prey]

this is true. so how would you go about banning foreign lobbyists?


I think lobbyists are easily identifiable. Visits to Capitol Hill would be out the question. Regarding parties, whoever's invited, eh? Except that every last dime a politician makes - directly or indirectly - better be accounted for including trips, lavish dinners, Vegas shows, concerts and underwear purchases, especially the expensive kind the Mormon Church sells.

[robeiae]

And btw, if you want to limit lobbyist influence on Senators, work to repeal the 17th Amendment. I'll sign on in a heartbeat.

[Bird of Prey]

And btw, if you want to limit lobbyist influence on Senators, work to repeal the 17th Amendment. I'll sign on in a heartbeat.

You think they should appointed by state government instead of being directly voted in? The campaign money angle?

[robeiae]

You think they should appointed by state government instead of being directly voted in? The campaign money angle?
I think it should be up to the state legislators to decide for their state. And if they chose to appoint their Senators, it would make the Senators more directly responsible to the interests of State governments--as was originally intended. And it would make Senators something much different than glorified Congressmen--as was originally intended. And it would mean that Senators would have no need of running campaigns, thus less susceptible to influence peddling--as was originally intended.

[Bird of Prey]

I think it should be up to the state legislators to decide for their state. And if they chose to appoint their Senators, it would make the Senators more directly responsible to the interests of State governments--as was originally intended. And it would make Senators something much different than glorified Congressmen--as was originally intended. And it would mean that Senators would have no need of running campaigns, thus less susceptible to influence peddling--as was originally intended.

I can see your point.

[clintl]

I think it should be up to the state legislators to decide for their state. And if they chose to appoint their Senators, it would make the Senators more directly responsible to the interests of State governments--as was originally intended. And it would make Senators something much different than glorified Congressmen--as was originally intended. And it would mean that Senators would have no need of running campaigns, thus less susceptible to influence peddling--as was originally intended.

Not to mention not accountable to the people, as originally intended.

[robeiae]

Not to mention not accountable to the people, as originally intended.
Depends on how you look at it. If a Senator did a lousy job, who would the people take it out on? Their state representatives, that's who. And those state reps would make a change or be out on their collective asses. No more multi-term senators. That's more accountable, not less--in my book anyway.

[Bird of Prey]

Not to mention not accountable to the people, as originally intended.


It's a two-edged sword. Influence peddling can happen either way. The problem with state appointments, is that it can get awfully clubby but I see Rob's point in that campaigns wouldn't be financed by special interest groups, thus the Senators would theoretically be beholden to the state goverment. Ultimately, however, the real solution to limiting big business running government is to disallow lobbyists.

[Joe270]

Depends on how you look at it. If a Senator did a lousy job, who would the people take it out on? Their state representatives, that's who. And those state reps would make a change or be out on their collective asses. No more multi-term senators. That's more accountable, not less--in my book anyway.

I don't see a major change with the powerful multi-term Senators, like Kennedy and Byrd. Because they serve on powerful committees, they keep getting elected.

State reps would probably be less likely to remove their senator.

One senator shouldn't have more power than another senator. It distorts the system.

[robeiae]

Well, we'd be changing the current system, so sure--some current Senators that wield a great deal of power might remain. But then again, a change in the make-up of a state legislature could change how such a Senator is viewed. Still, the ultimate point is that the Senate is not supposed to be directly responsible to special interests, unlike the House (and this is something that was recognized from the very being--thus the shorter term for House members).

[robeiae]

Ultimately, however, the real solution to limiting big business running government is to disallow lobbyists.
But that's unrealistic. There will always be "lobbyists." Disallowing them would amount to disallowing them in name only. The activity would not cease. It is omnipresent in all governments with elected legislative bodies.

[William Haskins]

it's omnipresent in history, from every tribe to every seat of power. political or social.

these are nice academic discussions, but "outlawing lobbyists" is not only ridiculously impossible; at some point, it runs afoul of free speech.

[robeiae]

...at some point, it runs afoul of free speech.At a very early point, imo.

And how am I supposed to avoid an academic speech, now?

[clintl]

Depends on how you look at it. If a Senator did a lousy job, who would the people take it out on? Their state representatives, that's who. And those state reps would make a change or be out on their collective asses. No more multi-term senators. That's more accountable, not less--in my book anyway.

How often do the voters actually take it out on the legislators directly when they're doing a bad job themselves? Pushing the accountability back one step isn't going to make it better.

The Constitution got amended to make the change because the original system was prone to corruption. The reasons for having the state legislatures pick the senators was pretty dubious to start with, and it makes even less sense in a world where the people have access to much more information than they did before. I really do not comprehend the attraction among some conservatives to return to an appointed Senate. To me, it's a horrible idea.

[blacbird]

It's the limited federal government that matters when examining his positions.

So he's going to curtail the influence of mighty multinational corporations, exactly how? My original point, stated more succinctly that I did. Thank you.

caw

[blacbird]

But that's unrealistic. There will always be "lobbyists." Disallowing them would amount to disallowing them in name only. The activity would not cease. It is omnipresent in all governments with elected legislative bodies.

Correcto. Which isn't the same as saying we should have no regulatory oversight of them. It is definitely within our public interest to curtail the Jack Abramoffs of the world from abusing their "profession". The good news is, he's in jail, as are Bob Ney and Duke Cunningham.

Note that it took independent investigative journalists followed up by expensive and concerted court action to get them there.

caw

[blacbird]

I think it should be up to the state legislators to decide for their state. And if they chose to appoint their Senators,

Gaaaaaaah!!!!. A more horrible alteration of our current system of governance is hard to imagine. You have a thoroughly pathological paranoia of people actually voting for their leaders, Robsie.

caw

[Andrew]

Setting up and financing PACS, hiring lobyists and meeting with our congresscritters are matters of free speech, freedom of association, aren't they?
Wouldn't the answer be to prosecute congresscritters who are corrupt? Cunningham comes to mind--but Murtha escapes??? At least the story on Jefferson was too obvious and he's probably going down.
My point is that there is a lack of accountability that we allow. Both parties are certainly up to their eyeballs in largess, payoffs and favors. Taking them to the woodshed and depriving them of liberty and ill-gotten assets would do a far better job than goofy things like McCain-Feingold.

[Bird of Prey]

it's omnipresent in history, from every tribe to every seat of power. political or social.

these are nice academic discussions, but "outlawing lobbyists" is not only ridiculously impossible; at some point, it runs afoul of free speech.

Although I think history can be relied upon to measure footprints, inevitably it's people incessantly citing it as an excuse to maintain the status quo that keep us bound to the same mediocre direction.

Mr, Haskins, you have no idea whether it can be done successfully because it's never been done in this country. As a result, you dismiss it out of hand. But instead of dismissing it, you might try examining the possibility. It would be so appreciated if you would at least consider solutions now and then.

[Bird of Prey]

So he's going to curtail the influence of mighty multinational corporations, exactly how? My original point, stated more succinctly that I did. Thank you.

caw

You have completely missed the point. If it's not obvious by now that Dr. Paul is not easily bought, I don't what else to say. Limiting federal power and making states responsible pulls states fully into the fray. State governments are far more accessible and vulnerable to inquiries, motives, examinations and ultimately the voice of their citizens.

I don't care how much you dislike him, bbird. You cannot credibly phony up his character or fundamental philosophy to suit your presentation.

And if you're going to take pot shots, at least use a consistent target. Paul is a separate issue and has nothing to do with the debate about eliminating lobbyists.

[Bird of Prey]

But that's unrealistic. There will always be "lobbyists." Disallowing them would amount to disallowing them in name only. The activity would not cease. It is omnipresent in all governments with elected legislative bodies.


Everything on its surface that's never been tried is unrealistic. But I think it's very possible. And yes, corruption and influence peddling will always exist, but that doesn't mean that no attempt should be made to curtail it. If foreign and corporate lobbyists are openly disallowed, it's a step in the right direction. It gives power back to the states which in turn empowers the citizens which is where the seat of power belongs.

[William Haskins]

Although I think history can be relied upon to measure footprints, inevitably it's people incessantly citing it as an excuse to maintain the status quo that keep us bound to the same mediocre direction.

Mr, Haskins, you have no idea whether it can be done successfully because it's never been done in this country. As a result, you dismiss it out of hand. But instead of dismissing it, you might try examining the possibility. It would be so appreciated if you would at least consider solutions now and then.

ms. prey, you have a lot of gall posting such baseless assumptions regarding my willingness to explore solutions.

i am telling you that human nature prohibits the wholesale removal of favor-currying, influence peddling and the bending of power for personal gain; history, in this regard is not an excuse, but a vivid illustration.

if you want to talk solutions, that's fine. but simply because someone is cynical of your pollyanna-ish "all lobbyists should be banned" idealism does not mean they can't face solutions; it simply means they can face reality.

[Bird of Prey]

ms. prey, you have a lot of gall posting such baseless assumptions regarding my willingness to explore solutions.

i am telling you that human nature prohibits the wholesale removal of favor-currying, influence peddling and the bending of power for personal gain; history, in this regard is not an excuse, but a vivid illustration.

if you want to talk solutions, that's fine. but simply because someone is cynical of your pollyanna-ish "all lobbyists should be banned" idealism does not mean they can't face solutions; it simply means they can face reality.


Well since apparently it's you staring reality so boldly and squarely in the face, and clearly it's you willing to explore realistic solutions, let's hear it. What does reality dictate, Mr. Haskins?

[William Haskins]

transparency and the power of shame.

[Bird of Prey]

transparency and the power of shame.


Good Lord. Now look who's the "pollyanna idealist." In case you don't know, the greedy are shameless, Mr. Haskins, and more join their ranks with every decade that their serenade is reinforced with the new or Neo-national anthem, proudly penned by Rand that: Greed is Good.


And their transparency doesn't stop them, William, because they see no shame in what they're doing. Stopping their lobbyists stops them or at least curbs them.

[robeiae]

Gaaaaaaah!!!!. A more horrible alteration of our current system of governance is hard to imagine. You have a thoroughly pathological paranoia of people actually voting for their leaders, Robsie.

caw
Nonsense. This was the way it was supposed to work. The Seventeenth undid several fundamental safeguards and relationships between the branches. The Senate is supposed to offset the special interest serving House.

And I think people would be better served concentrating on the leaders that they most directly control. State reps get a pass on way to much. If they were responsible in some ways for what the Fed does, they might get a little more scrutiny.

[robeiae]

Correcto. Which isn't the same as saying we should have no regulatory oversight of them. It is definitely within our public interest to curtail the Jack Abramoffs of the world from abusing their "profession". The good news is, he's in jail, as are Bob Ney and Duke Cunningham.

Note that it took independent investigative journalists followed up by expensive and concerted court action to get them there.

cawAbsolutely. And outlawing "lobbyists" would mean no oversight, no transparency whatsoever. A step in the wrong direction, imo.

[Robert Toy]

Everything on its surface that's never been tried is unrealistic. But I think it's very possible. And yes, corruption and influence peddling will always exist, but that doesn't mean that no attempt should be made to curtail it. If foreign and corporate lobbyists are openly disallowed, it's a step in the right direction. It gives power back to the states which in turn empowers the citizens which is where the seat of power belongs.

BOP if I may go back to the lobbyist issue for a moment on two specific points that seem to have you in knots:

Lobbyists in general: You no doubt realize that all 50 States and our various Protectorates have registered lobbyist at the Federal level. In addition, all have thousands of lobbyist at State and local levels. That is the method the “people” continue to communicate their desires, likes and dislikes to the politicians they elected. To try and simply it, it goes from a town hall meeting about the cost of corn to, all the way up the ladder to a walnut panel office in Washington DC.

It’s a wild ass example I know but read this link as an “example” only. The vast majority start at the grassroots level.
http://www.grist.org/comments/food/2007/10/25/


Foreign Lobbyist: Wow! You are a bit harsh on that one. The “Primary” purpose of any Embassy is to lobby the hosting government (better/more trade agreements, etc. etc.) Their citizens in the host country fall 3rd or 4th down the list of priorities. Many chose to hire local US lobbyist due to their access and knowledge of how the system works. Now, by law he must register as a Foreign lobbyist.

As the Executive Branch does not draft legislation, the president is very rarely approached by a lobbyist – exceptions election time and end of term pardons.

In summary – lobbying is the supposed to be the voice of the people.

[Bird of Prey]

BOP if I may go back to the lobbyist issue for a moment on two specific points that seem to have you in knots:

Lobbyists in general: You no doubt realize that all 50 States and our various Protectorates have registered lobbyist at the Federal level. In addition, all have thousands of lobbyist at State and local levels. That is the method the “people” continue to communicate their desires, likes and dislikes to the politicians they elected. To try and simply it, it goes from a town hall meeting about the cost of corn to, all the way up the ladder to a walnut panel office in Washington DC.

It’s a wild ass example I know but read this link as an “example” only. The vast majority start at the grassroots level.
http://www.grist.org/comments/food/2007/10/25/


Foreign Lobbyist: Wow! You are a bit harsh on that one. The “Primary” purpose of any Embassy is to lobby the hosting government (better/more trade agreements, etc. etc.) Their citizens in the host country fall 3rd or 4th down the list of priorities. Many chose to hire local US lobbyist due to their access and knowledge of how the system works. Now, by law he must register as a Foreign lobbyist.

As the Executive Branch does not draft legislation, the president is very rarely approached by a lobbyist – exceptions election time and end of term pardons.

In summary – lobbying is the supposed to be the voice of the people.


Lobbyists translate to payoffs. It's crooked, Robert. Influence peddling is associated with "gift giving." The voice of the people will come through loud and clear with a limited federal government and their state officials in the Congress and Senate. We don't need corporate or foreign lobbyists. If they want consideration, let them be considered through writing vis a vis their embassies or Congressional testimony, not with constant trips to Capitol Hill offices.

[Robert Toy]

Lobbyists translate to payoffs. It's crooked, Robert. Influence peddling is associated with "gift giving." The voice of the people will come through loud and clear with a limited federal government and their state officials in the Congress and Senate. We don't need corporate or foreign lobbyists. If they want consideration, let them be considered through writing vis a vis their embassies or Congressional testimony, not with constant trips to Capitol Hill offices.

It's amounts to LEGAL bribery agreed.

However, lobbying makes much more sense to me than a Filibuster. Unfortunately both are, and will remain part of the Granite that makes up the Federal Government Monolith. A revolution changing the government structure may work…:D

[Bird of Prey]

It's amounts to LEGAL bribery agreed.

However, lobbying makes much more sense to me than a Filibuster. Unfortunately both are, and will remain part of the Granite that makes up the Federal Government Monolith. . . .

When it comes to the future, nothing is written in stone.

[Robert Toy]

When it comes to the future, nothing is written in stone.

viva la revolución

[robeiae]

When it comes to the future, nothing is written in stone.
Not even the past, apparently...