Comments on: Should lobbyists be required to disclose anything?

By: Rob w

Rob w — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:30:08 +0000

Read Thomas Ferguson’s book Golden Rule.

He tracked elected representatives and how once in office elected officials tend to get far richer than they were when they entered politics.

By: Tony Hartford

Tony Hartford — Mon, 11 May 2009 22:29:37 +0000

I did mean “campaign contributions”. I’m not sure but I think it was on the 5/8 Bill Moyers Journal program where he indicated that some financial institutions had recently contributed around 3 million to the campaigns of various politicians for (fill in the blanks). I for one would like to know who. That would certainly shed some light on the “stress test” outcomes.

I should have been more specific in suggesting that contributions to lawmakers be completely transparent and all inclusive. A list of the lobbyists, their corporate clients making the contribution and including any participating employees. They are currently disclosed but without the specifics.

Thank you for your response and I’ll check out MAPLight.org.

By: Paul Blumenthal

Paul Blumenthal — Mon, 11 May 2009 15:37:05 +0000

I’m not sure what you mean exactly by money given to elected officials to push a bill through Congress. Lawmakers are not allowed to accept gifts or cash payments from companies to push bills. If this were occurring, we’d hope the Justice Department would prosecute and send the offending parties to jail, as they did with Rep. Duke Cunningham and have brought indictment against Rep. William Jefferson.

If you are referring to campaign contributions, those are disclosed, but do not amount to cash payments to lawmakers. There are numerous studies and examples (see: MAPLight.org) showing a high correlation between campaign contributions and support for legislation, although this could be a chicken-egg argument.

By: Tony Hartford

Tony Hartford — Mon, 11 May 2009 01:04:33 +0000

Lobbyists do perform a valid service to our elected representatives. However there are two sides to the coin. Only checking out one side is a disservice to the general public. I think, since they “do no wrong” there is no harm in total transparency. This would allow the other side of the coin to present their side of the issue.
Another point of greater concern is money. It would be helpful to know just how much money our elected officials receive to push a particular bill through congress. A general category, such as “Pharmaceuticals” doesn’t fill the bill either. Exactly who and how much would be preferred.