RE: Limits on Lobbyists

[Ellen Russak <erussak@aol.com>]

William Heitsman writes: "As long as we have a democracy with a government that can have an effect upon the lives of its citizens it will be unrealistic to expect a group, company or individual that will have government "Moving the Cheese" not to lobby to have the Cheese moved in a direction that will benefit the group, compnay, or individual."

I strongly agree with this.  Only countries where the government can suppressed all free speech can lobbying be eliminated - and in those countries citizens have no idea who is whispering in their leaders' ears because they don't have to register like our lobbyists. 

PACs were originally formed because people felt that big money and paid lobbyists shut them out of the legislative process.  It was a way for the little guys to band together and make a bigger impact.  It also was a way of tracking money used to influence legislation since PACs have to register and report thier finances.

They both have their good and bad points and it depends on your view point as to whether you like or hate them.  I have a tendency to do both depending on how ethically they are run.  I just hate to see all lobbying and all PACs painted with the same brush and casually flushed away (in theory, anyway) as some kind of solution to undue influence.  In a representative government, representatives have to listen to "advice" from all fronts or it would not be representative.  Capping contributions and banning lobbyist gifts would reduce the undue influence without amputating a leg to get rid of an infected toe.