The Land of Lobbying ... Bill Moyers

[Guest guest]

The reason breast implants are still "legal" . . . i.e. assaulting and killing women (via breast implants) is legal because breast implants are supported by our politicians!Rogene----------------------------------------

The Land of Lobbying Political folklore has

it that the term "lobbying" originated during the presidency of

Ulysses S. Grant, when, brandy in one hand, cigar in the other, the former

general would plant himself in the lobby of his favorite hotel and wait for the

public to come offering and asking for favors. This apocryphal tale certainly

paints a vivid picture of the art-gaggles of influence peddlers buzzing around

the man in power, wheedling, cajoling, sweating and making hushed promises,

carrying away either good news or bad. It is a scene that has been repeated ad

infinitum since government began, and it will continue as long government

exists. Indeed, as long as lawmakers have ears, lobbyists will be found

whispering into them. In its purest sense, lobbying represents our

First Amendment right as Americans to peaceably petition the government for a

redress of grievances. It's a way to make our desires known to our leaders, to

tell them what we think about laws and legislation. But increasingly, lobbying

has become the purview of professionals, men and women hired by special

interest groups seeking to influence which bills get made or killed, depending

on what benefits their particular agenda. The specter of the quid pro quo

always hangs over negotiations between lobbyists and lawmakers. Increasingly the

lobbying equation has centered not just around access to lawmakers — but

with seemingly guaranteed results. The interaction of lobbyist and politician

carries with it the possibility for corruption, conspiracy, fraud, and a host

of other unsavories, as the Jack Abramoff scandal has made abundantly clear. In 2005, lobbyists in the

United States spent $2.3 billion-up

from $1.5 billion just five years earlier-on behalf of their clients. But what

exactly are clients buying? Abramoff was able to charge millions in fees for

his lobbying because he had the kind of relationship with certain members of

the Republican leadership that few others did. As "Capitol Crimes"

showed, special interest groups were willing to pay big money for that kind of

access which in turn produced results. A direct pipeline to power means a much

better chance that when push comes to shove, the chips will fall in your favor.

And for that same reason-because of their

intricate knowledge of the system and their important ties to the players-a

sizeable percentage of congressmen and staffers who have left the Hill since

1998 have joined lobbying firms. Indeed, a lobbyist is only as powerful as the

number of close relationships he or she has with those who hold the reins. And

beyond that, many former lawmakers have found that they can double or triple

their congressional salaries in their new profession; it's no wonder then that

the number of registered full-time lobbyists doubled between 2000 and 2005, to

nearly 35,000. Considering all the recent attention paid to

lobbying in the wake of the Abramoff scandal, it is interesting to note that

super-lobbyists like Abramoff existed more than 150 years ago in

America .

The most notable was undoubtedly Sam Ward, known as the "King of the

Lobby," who in the 1860s and '70s made a fortune in

Washington representing big-name companies

and foreign interests. When testifying before Congress in 1875, he spoke

plainly about the difficulties inherent in his oft-denigrated profession.

"I am not ashamed-I do not say I am proud, but I am not ashamed-of the

occupation," he said. "The disappointments are much more numerous

than the successes. I have had many a very pleasant 'contingent' knocked away

when everything appeared prosperous and certain, and I would not insure any

bill, [even] if I were paid fifty per cent, to secure its passage." "Congress has always had, and always will

have, lobbyists and lobbying," says former Senate Majority Leader

Byrd. "We could not adequately consider our workload without them."

But he also stresses the need for vigilance. "The history of this

institution demonstrates the need for eternal vigilance to ensure that

lobbyists do not abuse their role, that lobbying is carried on publicly with

full publicity, and that the interests of all citizens are heard without giving

special ear to the best organized and most lavishly funded." Whether the recent scandals will propel

Congress to enact lobbying reform still remains to be seen, but with almost

half of all congressmen joining lobbying firms after serving their terms, one

must question whether it is in their best interest to do so.

[Guest guest]

The reason breast implants are still "legal" . . . i.e. assaulting and killing women (via breast implants) is legal because breast implants are supported by our politicians!Rogene----------------------------------------

The Land of Lobbying Political folklore has

it that the term "lobbying" originated during the presidency of

Ulysses S. Grant, when, brandy in one hand, cigar in the other, the former

general would plant himself in the lobby of his favorite hotel and wait for the

public to come offering and asking for favors. This apocryphal tale certainly

paints a vivid picture of the art-gaggles of influence peddlers buzzing around

the man in power, wheedling, cajoling, sweating and making hushed promises,

carrying away either good news or bad. It is a scene that has been repeated ad

infinitum since government began, and it will continue as long government

exists. Indeed, as long as lawmakers have ears, lobbyists will be found

whispering into them. In its purest sense, lobbying represents our

First Amendment right as Americans to peaceably petition the government for a

redress of grievances. It's a way to make our desires known to our leaders, to

tell them what we think about laws and legislation. But increasingly, lobbying

has become the purview of professionals, men and women hired by special

interest groups seeking to influence which bills get made or killed, depending

on what benefits their particular agenda. The specter of the quid pro quo

always hangs over negotiations between lobbyists and lawmakers. Increasingly the

lobbying equation has centered not just around access to lawmakers — but

with seemingly guaranteed results. The interaction of lobbyist and politician

carries with it the possibility for corruption, conspiracy, fraud, and a host

of other unsavories, as the Jack Abramoff scandal has made abundantly clear. In 2005, lobbyists in the

United States spent $2.3 billion-up

from $1.5 billion just five years earlier-on behalf of their clients. But what

exactly are clients buying? Abramoff was able to charge millions in fees for

his lobbying because he had the kind of relationship with certain members of

the Republican leadership that few others did. As "Capitol Crimes"

showed, special interest groups were willing to pay big money for that kind of

access which in turn produced results. A direct pipeline to power means a much

better chance that when push comes to shove, the chips will fall in your favor.

And for that same reason-because of their

intricate knowledge of the system and their important ties to the players-a

sizeable percentage of congressmen and staffers who have left the Hill since

1998 have joined lobbying firms. Indeed, a lobbyist is only as powerful as the

number of close relationships he or she has with those who hold the reins. And

beyond that, many former lawmakers have found that they can double or triple

their congressional salaries in their new profession; it's no wonder then that

the number of registered full-time lobbyists doubled between 2000 and 2005, to

nearly 35,000. Considering all the recent attention paid to

lobbying in the wake of the Abramoff scandal, it is interesting to note that

super-lobbyists like Abramoff existed more than 150 years ago in

America .

The most notable was undoubtedly Sam Ward, known as the "King of the

Lobby," who in the 1860s and '70s made a fortune in

Washington representing big-name companies

and foreign interests. When testifying before Congress in 1875, he spoke

plainly about the difficulties inherent in his oft-denigrated profession.

"I am not ashamed-I do not say I am proud, but I am not ashamed-of the

occupation," he said. "The disappointments are much more numerous

than the successes. I have had many a very pleasant 'contingent' knocked away

when everything appeared prosperous and certain, and I would not insure any

bill, [even] if I were paid fifty per cent, to secure its passage." "Congress has always had, and always will

have, lobbyists and lobbying," says former Senate Majority Leader

Byrd. "We could not adequately consider our workload without them."

But he also stresses the need for vigilance. "The history of this

institution demonstrates the need for eternal vigilance to ensure that

lobbyists do not abuse their role, that lobbying is carried on publicly with

full publicity, and that the interests of all citizens are heard without giving

special ear to the best organized and most lavishly funded." Whether the recent scandals will propel

Congress to enact lobbying reform still remains to be seen, but with almost

half of all congressmen joining lobbying firms after serving their terms, one

must question whether it is in their best interest to do so.