Politics, News & Issues >
Government & Policies
RSS FeedShould lobbyists disclose the names of lawmakers, staff and executive branch officials they meet?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Yes | 78% | 122 votes | Total: 156 votes | |
| No | 22% | 34 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesThe founding fathers of democracy in the United States envisioned a nation based on equity in governance. One vote for each citizen regardless of socioeconomic status. Lobbying of any sort has the potential to undermine this fundamental equation of equality.
There are, basically, two kinds of lobbying: that which is centered on serving the common good and that which has the purpose of profiting a few. In the latter case, the determining characteristic is this: if the cost of lobbying will not produce or protect the profits and/or profitability for the investing beneficiaries, then it is not a justifiable expense.
Equality in governance requires that each voter have the same access to information. In order to assure equal access, the relationship between lobbyists and representatives, regardless of the branch (legislative, executive, judicial) and regardless of whether those representatives are elected or hired, must be transparent. There can be no secrets in the business of lobbying if we are to retain the level playing field envisioned by the builders of this democracy.
Lobbying is a two-way street, and the necessary openness and accessibility to the public of all information shared and, equally as important, the people who have shared that information, is critical on both sides. The public must know who the lobbyists are (their name, who they represent and their purpose)and with whom in government they met. This information should be reported to a non-biased clearinghouse by both the lobbyist and the government official.
With severe fines that have significant financial impact on the lobbyist and its beneficiaries for violating this trust of the American people, those who would like to make government do their bidding will be more conscious of the fact that government is "of, by and for ALL of the people," first, and does not exist for the primary purpose of filling individual's pocketbook.
As a result of requiring public disclosure of all contacts with less than the whole governing body, citizens can be more informed and will, thereby, be better equipped to judge their representatives' decision-making.
Learn more about this author, Michael Burgwin.
Click here to send Author comments or questions.
No
C-SPAN does an outstanding job covering the inner workings of government, from the floor of Congress, press conferences at the White House, interviews with leading thinkers, diplomats, reporters and heads of state. Information on legislations is found on major news outlets, talk radio, satellite radio and the internet; if there is a shortage of knowledge of legislative issues then you are just not paying attention. Lobbyist, Lawyers, community activist debate from all sides of issues that face the American people in news letters, editorial pages, and internet blogs.
Forcing lobbyist to disclose the lawmakers they contact will only muddy the legislative process and prevent lawmakers from accomplishing anything of significance. Lobbyist reporting who they contact and counsel will have a chilling effect on how open and honest they can be as to what they believe are problems, stalling efforts to correct bad legislation and paralyzing the countries ability to adapt to changing times.
The purpose of this reform is to look over the shoulder of the President and Lawmakers, by groups who have a vestige interest in the status quo stopping what they deem as bad for the American people. However, the American people will be short changed, by not getting a full hearing of these bills because activist groups will be able to nit-pick the process and prevent bills from developing in to what could be good law.
The American people will be the losers if this reform ever comes about because good ideas are often hashed out from a cloud of bad ideas, and all you would hear from nay-sayers would be negativity and skepticism, leading to complacency, and inaction. Thus creating derision among the electorate and stagnation in the economy.
The immigration bills is a good example as to how the process works. Few know how the latest immigration bill was drafted, in closed rooms, perhaps, but when it came to the floor for debate, the American people realized it had the same enforcement mechanisms that the bill Ronald Reagen signed in the 1980s, which were never enforced. The American people were outraged, demanding the boarder be shut down before the bill go any further. Senators received calls from their constituency and killed the bill before it could be made law.
The process by which law is made is irrelevant to the final draft of any bill. What is important however, is that the American people have a full hearing of all future legislation. Then we can decide through our own lobbying efforts or through the ballot box, as to the direction we want to see the country go; not groups who purport to have our best interest in mind. The American people should decide, not people inside the beltway.
Learn more about this author, Donald Hutchinson Jr..
Click here to send Author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Government & Policies
- Should government policies mandate reductions in carbon dioxide emissions?
- Should Congressional representatives be allowed to add earmarks to appropriations bills?
- Is cutting spending the best way for states to solve budget deficits?
- Should members of Congress be required to post their earmark requests to their websites?
- Does the resale of Coast Guard Marine cutters by faith-based groups signal a problem for faith-based initiatives?
- Should Congress be allowed to pass bills that neither the public nor their representatives/senators have had a chance to read?
