Obama's New Lobbying Proposals are a Mixed Bag

Do you realise that the governments lawyers in this Supreme Court case were asked if a candidates name is mentioned in a negative light in a book during an election year would they actually advocate banning it from print? The governments lawyers said yes. Hello! What country or constitution are they representing?

The media gatekeepers are actually muzzling those who they disagree with already and their bias is quite obvious. To be honest when have you ever heard Sarah Palin's name mentioned in a positive light by the main stream media or the not so main stream like USNEWS for example?

Seriously when you consider that the SEIU, Hollywood and the MSNBC's of the world spread what I consider their crap with impunity, you can't really mean you stand with a restriction of free speech just because you dont like who has money do you? If you dont like the free speech of those you disagree with, you dont deserve to have it yourself. Please go live in Iran or somewhere else. At the very least reconsider your position.

Jeff of WI 5:57AM February 02, 2010

One of the principal differences between politics now and politics, say, 50 years ago is that in politics today, those who shout loudest, not those who debate issues best, win. No longer is it enough to run on issues and, thereby, beat opponent(s) on what could matter to voters. Now those who run can be hammered by advertising underwritten by interests which stand to lose much if THEY don't convince voters a candidate isn't worth the voter's time. That's a BIG difference. It's the difference between voters having their say and moneyed interests, through the extravagant means at their disposal, having theirs.

Those who don't understand that distinction probably don't remember a time when corporations didn't have the impact on elections they now do.

The danger, of course, is magnified when voters don't know enough to avoid being deceived by glitzy ads designed expressly to persuade them to vote against their own interests--usually through distortion of facts, exaggeration, and other tactics.

The people's choice is often now just the moneyed interests' choice.

Recent Roberts Supreme Court decisions have only exacerbated the problem, not helped it. Politics and money are not a very good mix--not for any of us.

Ron W. Smith of UT 9:15PM February 01, 2010

Thanks for the oxymoron, "thoughtful voters."

Here's the deal, the Supreme Court ruling cuts both ways. And tell me the fundamental difference between what corporations can now do and what Political Action Committies (PACs) have done?

Here's why lobbiest are good. They educate elected officials about the issues. I don't expect Scott Brown or any other Senator to know the minutia of every detail in every case. I know they have staffers, but even then.

I think we can both agree that for this reason they do serve a purpose.

I also agree there has to be some controls. It was recently touted on MSNBC that there were 35,000 lobbyists in D.C (I don't know if it's true because it was came from Mr. Ed and it was on MSNBC). If it is true, then it's concerning.

Tell me the difference between a Washington D.C. lobbyist and you or I lobbying a Senator at a campaign rally at the city park for their vote on key issues and then giving then a $10 campaign contribution?

Essentially their both the same thing.

I can also assure you that memory chip manufacturers have been lobbying the powers that be for protection from foreign manufacturers like Hygenex. Is that wrong?

David of ID 4:56PM February 01, 2010

Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth concerning lobbyists. I'd say he's a typical politician.

Puller58 of TX 4:40AM February 01, 2010