Con_Alma;1191856 wrote:It takes a congressman to sponsor and support the bill. It takes the House to pass it. It takes the President to sign it into law.

It ultimately takes the elected representatives to make anything happen. They are responsible for the activity and action.

Corporations don't vote or legislate. I never used the words "write".

gosh written by their lobbyists and voted on by their future lobbyist and that is not subverting the system.

Cleveland Buck;1191878 wrote:When the government has the authority to choose winners and losers in the economy they are officially open for business and the representatives no longer represent the people. No regulation on campaign contributions will ever change that.

I agree that regulating/eliminating campaign contributions wouldn't change the ability of elected representatives not acting in a manner that isn't in the best interest of their constituents.

isadore;1191883 wrote:gosh written by their lobbyists and voted on by their future lobbyist and that is not subverting the system.

No, because it is the system.

Con_Alma;1191882 wrote:I respectfully pass on the option of overturning Citiznes Untied. Lobbying has is a valuable component to our process.

It does. The rights of the value creators must be protected and defended from those who create no value, or you end-up with no one creating value to take from.

Con_Alma;1191887 wrote:No, because it is the system.

gosh I don't think that was the original intent. It should be the subject of a RICO investigation.

isadore;1191877 wrote:and what do you do for a living?

I'm an energy regulatory attorney.

isadore;1191894 wrote:gosh I don't think that was the original intent. It should be the subject of a RICO investigation.

That doesn't change the fact that it is the system and ridding it doesn't subvert the system but instead changes it as it exists today.

I am not for ridding lobbying from our process. You are. There's not much more to it than that.

fan_from_texas;1191897 wrote:I'm an energy regulatory attorney.

so your description of how the system should work would be self serving?

Con_Alma;1191900 wrote:That doesn't change the fact that it is the system and ridding it doesn't subvert the system but instead changes it as it exists today.

I am not for ridding lobbying from our process. You are. There's not much more to it than that.

that a system becomes corrupted is no argument for continuing its operation in that form. Time to cleanse the augean stables.

isadore;1191903 wrote:so your description of how the system should work would be self serving?

I have never mentioned how it should work.

I have stated that ridding the lobbying process would change the system.

I am not for ridding lobbying from our process. You are. There's not much more to it than that.

isadore;1191906 wrote:that a system becomes corrupted is no argument for continuing its operation in that form. Time to cleanse the augean stables.

That has never been my argument.

My opinion is that there is value to the lobbying process and I have no interest in getting rid of that.

Con_Alma;1191908 wrote:I have never mentioned how it should work.

I have stated that ridding the lobbying process would change the system.

I am not for ridding lobbying from our process. You are. There's not much more to it than that.

gosh a ruddies, you should try reading the thread and know that comment was directed at Fan who had a long description of why it was great to have lobbyist write legislation. And who I then asked what he did for a living.

isadore;1191913 wrote:gosh a ruddies, you should try reading the thread and know that comment was directed at Fan who had a long description of why it was great to have lobbyist write legislation. And who I then asked what he did for a living.

I did read those comments....and recognised that you quted FFT.

I chose to add mine as an opinion on your post.

Since peope have the right to petition the government for redress of grievance, lobbying will exist at all levels of government. It has though become completely corrupted, a situation that calls for increased regulation.

isadore;1191903 wrote:so your description of how the system should work would be self serving?

Certainly. Because I work with entities seeking to comply with various regulations, I appreciate clear requirements. These requirements come about by having people with experience in the industry weighing in. When an agency issues a NOPR, anyone in the US can intervene and file comments--if you'd like to weigh in on these issues, I'd encourage you to do so. I find it particularly helpful in my field when engineers weigh in, as they provide technical expertise that most attorneys lack.

isadore;1191913 wrote:gosh a ruddies, you should try reading the thread and know that comment was directed at Fan who had a long description of why it was great to have lobbyist write legislation. And who I then asked what he did for a living.

My comment was a bit more nuanced, I think. I'm trying to argue that (1) as areas of economic regulation become more complicated, experience in that niche area is a necessary prerequisite for crafting cogent regulations that have a real-world basis, and (2) as a result of (1), combined with the fact that the industries being regulated have more incentive to become involved than any private citizen does, we should not be surprised when we see regulatory capture by industry. Scholar after scholar concludes that this is a relatively inevitable outgrowth of the regulatory state. I'm not making a pro/con judgment, just noting that this is the reality faced when Congress enacts new laws.

fan_from_texas;1191919 wrote:Certainly. Because I work with entities seeking to comply with various regulations, I appreciate clear requirements. These requirements come about by having people with experience in the industry weighing in. When an agency issues a NOPR, anyone in the US can intervene and file comments--if you'd like to weigh in on these issues, I'd encourage you to do so. I find it particularly helpful in my field when engineers weigh in, as they provide technical expertise that most attorneys lack.

You would know better than I, but it seems a process that gives little influence to the worker in the industry or to the consumer.

isadore;1191923 wrote:You would know better than I, but it seems a process that gives little influence to the worker in the industry or to the consumer.

I don't know how it is done in other states, but at least in WI/IL (where I have the most familiarity), industry pays a special fee that then goes to fund well-organized groups that intervene on behalf of citizens/ratepayers to represent their interests. I have seen labor groups intervene as well, but I don't think that is nearly as common because many of these issues aren't directly applicable to labor (do the unions really care how, for example, transmission credits are allocated in non-RTO/ISO markets? It's just not relevant to their interests).

It's a completely asinine position to believe businesses should have no input into fiscal and regulatory policy. That [mostly] lawyers in Congress would create policy with no understanding of the inner workings of the businesses and how they will be affected is irresponsible at best.

Yes, this process should be completely detached from campaign contributions. Unfortunately it has become a necessary checks & balance to vote pandering to an ignorant electorate motivated almost purely by self-interest (which applies to almost everyone). Left to it's own selfish devices, the electorate would destroy the lifeblood of the economy. We would be racing toward Utopia not realizing the bridge is out ahead and we are about to drive over the cliff.

When businesses can grow, they hire more workers. Wealth redistribution (as opposed to safety nets) otherwise becomes a game of musical chairs where you are, perhaps, a little better off so long as you are not left standing when the music stops.

isadore;1191918 wrote:... It has though become completely corrupted, a situation that calls for increased regulation.

Increased regulation is very different than ridding the process of lobbying.

Con_Alma;1191934 wrote:Increased regulation is very different than ridding the process of lobbying.

Agreed. I'm fine with rules requiring transparency and "cooling off" periods. Increased transparency at all levels is a good thing.

fan_from_texas;1191928 wrote:I don't know how it is done in other states, but at least in WI/IL (where I have the most familiarity), industry pays a special fee that then goes to fund well-organized groups that intervene on behalf of citizens/ratepayers to represent their interests. I have seen labor groups intervene as well, but I don't think that is nearly as common because many of these issues aren't directly applicable to labor (do the unions really care how, for example, transmission credits are allocated in non-RTO/ISO markets? It's just not relevant to their interests).

I would think decisions that may effect their future employment would be of interest to them. On many issues they would be on the side of the industry. The teamsters and the UAW on some issues are on the same side as the corporations in their industries.

fan_from_texas;1191937 wrote:Agreed. I'm fine with rules requiring transparency and "cooling off" periods. Increased transparency at all levels is a good thing.

Transparency and a cooling of period is a reasonable expectation and request by the citizens.

isadore;1191939 wrote: The teamsters and the UAW on some issues are on the same side as the corporations in their industries.

And you should equally oppose their lobbying power. The teamsters, UAW and other powerful unions like them are outstanding negotiators on behalf of their members - they win above average wages and benefits. They then go out and support liberals/Democrats favoring redistributionist policies to then expropriate more wealth from other businesses/industries (and indirectly their workers) not represented by them.

and citizens united helped them.