Here’s a little something I received from our Senator - seems worth passing along.
http://www.bennet.senate.gov/lobbyingban
Try to wrap your head around this statistic:
In 1974, 3 percent of retiring members of Congress became lobbyists.
Now, 50 percent of Senators and 42 percent of Congressmen do.
That's not a revolving door, it's a merry go round. And my guess is these members of Congress aren't staying in Washington because they like the weather (it's terrible).
Let's face it, the outsized influence of lobbying is corroding our political system. It's time for aggressive reform.
John Tester and I have written a bill that bans members of Congress from ever becoming lobbyists.
<a href="http://ct.symplicity.com/t/ben/0717da450b613b57d77dfd96d9a5d5e1/1349371719/realurl=http://www.bennet.senate.gov/lobbyingban"Sign this petition and add your support if you think its time Washington cleaned up its act.
I signed, even though it’s a lost cause. But wouldn’t it be great if it could actually happen, and happen in time to keep Cantor from getting a lucrative lobbyist position?
Now that I think about it, since Congress will never pass such a bill, it would probably be more likely to get an Amendment. This would only require 2/3rds of the States to call for a Constitutional Convention to propose the Amendment, and then 2/3rds of the States to approve it. It’s never been done, this way, but the Constitution provides for it, and it would be more likely than getting enough Congressmen to vote for the interests of the country over their own personal interests.
Now that I think about it, since Congress will never pass such a bill, it would probably be more likely to get an Amendment. This would only require 2/3rds of the States to call for a Constitutional Convention to propose the Amendment, and then 2/3rds of the States to approve it. It's never been done, this way, but the Constitution provides for it, and it would be more likely than getting enough Congressmen to vote for the interests of the country over their own personal interests.
Although you're right that passing an amendment would be more likely than getting enough Congressmen to vote for the interests of the country, it has only a slight edge. Getting such an amendment passed is next to impossible.
As long as Congress itself is in control of what Congress can do, nothing will change. We will continue to have to deal with former Congressmen being highly paid lobbyists and undermining the democratic process. Congress itself does not care about the Democratic process, especially if it undermines the individual representatives' moneymaking and power hungry agenda.
Lois
Now that I think about it, since Congress will never pass such a bill, it would probably be more likely to get an Amendment. This would only require 2/3rds of the States to call for a Constitutional Convention to propose the Amendment, and then 2/3rds of the States to approve it. It's never been done, this way, but the Constitution provides for it, and it would be more likely than getting enough Congressmen to vote for the interests of the country over their own personal interests.
Although you're right that passing an amendment would be more likely than getting enough Congressmen to vote for the interests of the country, it has only a slight edge. Getting such an amendment passed is next to impossible.
As long as Congress itself is in control of what Congress can do, nothing will change. We will continue to have to deal with former Congressmen being highly paid lobbyists and undermining the democratic process. congress itself does not care about the Democratic process, especially if it undermines the individual representatives' moneymaking and power hungry agenda.
Lois
Exactly. But I signed the petition anyway, because it would be such a key reform in correcting some of the corruption that has become an integral part of our current political system.
Now that I think about it, since Congress will never pass such a bill, it would probably be more likely to get an Amendment. This would only require 2/3rds of the States to call for a Constitutional Convention to propose the Amendment, and then 2/3rds of the States to approve it. It's never been done, this way, but the Constitution provides for it, and it would be more likely than getting enough Congressmen to vote for the interests of the country over their own personal interests.
Although you're right that passing an amendment would be more likely than getting enough Congressmen to vote for the interests of the country, it has only a slight edge. Getting such an amendment passed is next to impossible.
As long as Congress itself is in control of what Congress can do, nothing will change. We will continue to have to deal with former Congressmen being highly paid lobbyists and undermining the democratic process. congress itself does not care about the Democratic process, especially if it undermines the individual representatives' moneymaking and power hungry agenda.
Lois
Exactly. But I signed the petition anyway, because it would be such a key reform in correcting some of the corruption that has become an integral part of our current political system.
It's symbolic, anyway. That's often the best we can do.
Speaking about my Senator (Bennet from Colorado) he sent me another email, (don’t I feel special his team seems to be sending me a few of these every day, my I must be important :lol: heeheehee)
But I found his opening line interesting:“I may have only been at this job a few years, but in that time, I’ve become convinced that the real division in our politics isn’t left vs. right, it’s the future vs. the past.”
Unfortunately, after that he lost his thread and it degenerated into another plea for money - but I still thought it was an interesting concept - any thoughts?
Although, thinking on it, I would put it differently: The real political division in our political system is between rationalists and fantasists.
And yes, I’m firmly convinced, by all the evidence at hand, that Republican/Libertarian minds have disconnected from reality and climbed into their own imaginations with hostility towards anyone/everyone who tries to speak for the rest of the world and down to Earth realities.
All these masters of the universe like the Bushs, Cheneys, Murdochs, Kochs, Roves can see is spread-sheets, consumption, profits - while hiding behind the cover story of some self-imagined God in heaven who’s watching this madness (political, economic, war-making, ecological) throughout the world and giv’n 'em all the big thumbs up,
it’s utterly loonie God damn the fools >:-(
Ain't it all these days :down:
So do we roll over?
Just tossing it out there.
Hey, where would "glory" be if no one ever fought against the odds?... And what is lost, may not be lost forever... And remember the Alamo!... And yippe-ki-yay, motherf#kkers!... etc.
If retired congressmen don’t become lobbists, some one else will. We need to ban or strictly regulate lobbying. Lobbying is the problem, not the congressional retirement plan it has become.
Unfortunately, they have no interest and no need to address this problem, and the public can’t comprehend the reality of climate change, let along the dangers of monied influence in politics.
If retired congressmen don't become lobbists, some one else will. We need to ban or strictly regulate lobbying. Lobbying is the problem, not the congressional retirement plan it has become.
Unfortunately, they have no interest and no need to address this problem, and the public can't comprehend the reality of climate change, let along the dangers of monied influence in politics.
It is a big part of the problem, not only because the highest bidder can get a former congressman as a lobbyist (probably more effective than your run-of-the-mill lobbyist), but while the congressman is still in office, prospective highest bidders could have undue influence with the implicit or explicit promise of a high paying job.
But you're right, the overall influence of lobbyists for moneyed interests is also a problem. An alternative might be a law that requires a relatively modest salary cap for lobbyists to Congress plus a cap on the number of lobbyists and on overall spending on and by lobbyists of any single company or interest group or individual.
But, either way, we all know that Congress, as a whole, will not vote against their own individual interests. Neither humanistic tendencies, nor statesmanship, are prerequisites for becoming a Congressman.