Monday, December 15, 2008
Friday, December 12, 2008
Wikipedia Update
My addition to the Wikipedia article was deleted within 10 minutes of addition. I am a little suprised at the bit of disappointment I felt when I saw that. haha. I suppose I was hoping to at least make it an hour. Maybe I'll add it again tomorrow.
Wikipedia Entry
The article that I contributed to was under the category "Various Viewpoints on Lobbying" on the page of Wikipedia entiled "Lobbying". I thought it was pretty cool to see my entry on the main page when I completed it but was also a bit nervous that it would be deleted immediately by the site. Knowing that it could be viewed by anyone, I began to second guess everything that I was writing. Overall, however, I liked the idea that my ideas were now on a page that I had used for information when we first started this project at the start of the semester.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying#Viewpoints_on_lobbying
Username: Awojno
Entry:
"Although many sources defend the use of lobbying as a means of voicing the concerns of a certain group, there are also drawbacks to the practice as well. Perhaps the most obvious and common of these drawbacks is the possibility of a corruptive system. This corruption can come in many forms; one being unfair campaign donations, or even direct payment by way of the lobbyist to a politician in exchange for the the passage of desired legilative issues. Recent examples of corruption in lobbying include the Jack Abramoff Indian Lobbying Scandal, allegations against Representative William Jefferson (D-La), and the recent accusations against the Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich, about his "pay to play" tactics.
To combat and help increase the transparencies regarding lobbyist/politician relationships, various watchdog groups have been formed. Most of these groups can be found on the internet and provide information to educate the public on current issues involving the lobbyist involvment in the political system."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying#Viewpoints_on_lobbying
Username: Awojno
Entry:
"Although many sources defend the use of lobbying as a means of voicing the concerns of a certain group, there are also drawbacks to the practice as well. Perhaps the most obvious and common of these drawbacks is the possibility of a corruptive system. This corruption can come in many forms; one being unfair campaign donations, or even direct payment by way of the lobbyist to a politician in exchange for the the passage of desired legilative issues. Recent examples of corruption in lobbying include the Jack Abramoff Indian Lobbying Scandal, allegations against Representative William Jefferson (D-La), and the recent accusations against the Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich, about his "pay to play" tactics.
To combat and help increase the transparencies regarding lobbyist/politician relationships, various watchdog groups have been formed. Most of these groups can be found on the internet and provide information to educate the public on current issues involving the lobbyist involvment in the political system."
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
This video is a great example of the involvement of lobbyists in the social lives of politicians. The video was shot in September before the Republican National Convention. Not only does it show the amount of money spent on the politicians, but it also gives an insite to the openess and almost arrogance of the situation. Some of the scenes are almost comical to witness how these politicians are treated by certain groups that the politicians claim not to be influenced by. I think the funniest part of the video is the name of the band performing at one of the main parties, "Hookers and Blow." I wonder if the band members are former politicians?
Ten facts about lobbying
1. A lobbyist is a defined as a person who promotes the position or interests of a certain group or cause to legislatures.
2. Lobbyists spent 2.83 billion dollars in their activities in the 2007.
3. The average lobbyist salary in the United States is $46,000; however, the average salary for a lobbyist employed by a large D.C. firm is around $300,000.
4. During the Bush administration, the number of federal lobbyists more than doubled.
5. In 1995, congress passed the Lobbying Disclosure Act in attempt to make the lobbying practice more transparent.
6. Most lobbyists have backgrounds in politics, either educational or work related.
7. Any lobbyist making over $6,000 in six months must register with the federal government.
8. Failure to register with the federal government has fines ranging up to $50,000.
9. Jack Abramoff, one of the most synonymous names to lobbyist corruption, is currently serving ten years on two different cases involving lobbying corruption.
10. The most a single person can donate to a political campaign is $2,300.
1. A lobbyist is a defined as a person who promotes the position or interests of a certain group or cause to legislatures.
2. Lobbyists spent 2.83 billion dollars in their activities in the 2007.
3. The average lobbyist salary in the United States is $46,000; however, the average salary for a lobbyist employed by a large D.C. firm is around $300,000.
4. During the Bush administration, the number of federal lobbyists more than doubled.
5. In 1995, congress passed the Lobbying Disclosure Act in attempt to make the lobbying practice more transparent.
6. Most lobbyists have backgrounds in politics, either educational or work related.
7. Any lobbyist making over $6,000 in six months must register with the federal government.
8. Failure to register with the federal government has fines ranging up to $50,000.
9. Jack Abramoff, one of the most synonymous names to lobbyist corruption, is currently serving ten years on two different cases involving lobbying corruption.
10. The most a single person can donate to a political campaign is $2,300.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Interlibrary loan assignment
The book that I received through interlibrary loan is entitled, Political Corruption in America: an encyclopedia of scandals, power, and greed. The book was written by Mark Grossman. I didn’t request the book because it had one specific fact or because it was solely based on lobbying alone but rather that included throughout the book were various examples throughout history when lobbying has led to corruption. Examples of negative lobbying included in the book range from the 1800’s to the 21st century. Also discussed in the book are various acts made by congress to combat the corruption that can result from crooked politicians.
I don’t think the book was as beneficial as I thought it would be when I had requested it through interlibrary loan last month. I think around that time I was still quite open minded on the idea of lobbyist involvement in government and saw the book as an argument for the opposition on the topic. The book, however, did make my opposition towards big business lobbying stronger in that it reinforced the idea that lobbying has just as long of a history in our government as our government has itself. The idea that this practice is so engrained into our system continues to be somewhat unnerving, however, I am still willing to hold out hope that indeed it does have a purpose and that that purpose is a good one.
The book that I received through interlibrary loan is entitled, Political Corruption in America: an encyclopedia of scandals, power, and greed. The book was written by Mark Grossman. I didn’t request the book because it had one specific fact or because it was solely based on lobbying alone but rather that included throughout the book were various examples throughout history when lobbying has led to corruption. Examples of negative lobbying included in the book range from the 1800’s to the 21st century. Also discussed in the book are various acts made by congress to combat the corruption that can result from crooked politicians.
I don’t think the book was as beneficial as I thought it would be when I had requested it through interlibrary loan last month. I think around that time I was still quite open minded on the idea of lobbyist involvement in government and saw the book as an argument for the opposition on the topic. The book, however, did make my opposition towards big business lobbying stronger in that it reinforced the idea that lobbying has just as long of a history in our government as our government has itself. The idea that this practice is so engrained into our system continues to be somewhat unnerving, however, I am still willing to hold out hope that indeed it does have a purpose and that that purpose is a good one.
1. How much has the top private lobbying firm in the United States, Patton Boggs LLP, spent on lobbying efforts in the past ten years?
a. $10,000,000
b. $50,000,000
c. $150,000,000
d. $300,000,000
2. As of 2008, how many registered lobbyists are there?
a. About 10,000
b. About 16,000
c. About 23,000
d. About 50,000
3. How much was spent by lobbyists in an effort to influence the government in 2007?
a. 1 billion dollars
b. 1.7 billion dollars
c. 2.8 billion dollars
d. 5 billion dollars
4. What is the name that many of the lobbying firms are located on in Washington D.C.?
a. B Street
b. Money Lane
c. K Street
d. G.W. B. Avenue
5. Which group, not firm, is the highest spending lobbying client?
a. US Chamber of Commerce
b. Exxon Mobile
c. Freddie Mac
d. General Electric
6. What is an earmark?
a. A provision in a bill that provides funds for a specific project usually related to one congressman or group.
b. A hold put on a bill by the opposing party to delay its approval.
c. A way to cut unnecessary government spending.
d. A new type of jewelry.
7. What is lobbying?
a. Efforts made by politicians to uncover the needs of their districts.
b. A process through which politicians attempt to distance themselves from their districts.
c. A way for the everyday person to get rich.
d. A way to attempt to influence the activity of the government.
8. The term lobbyist originated around which year?
a. 2005
b. 1830
c. 2004
d. 1950
9. Which of the following is a lobbied sector?
a. Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate
b. Health
c. Defense
d. All of the above
10. How much did Exxon Mobil spend on Lobbying in 2008?
a. About $1,000,000
b. About $11,000,000
c. About $18,000,000
d. About $25,000,000
a. $10,000,000
b. $50,000,000
c. $150,000,000
d. $300,000,000
2. As of 2008, how many registered lobbyists are there?
a. About 10,000
b. About 16,000
c. About 23,000
d. About 50,000
3. How much was spent by lobbyists in an effort to influence the government in 2007?
a. 1 billion dollars
b. 1.7 billion dollars
c. 2.8 billion dollars
d. 5 billion dollars
4. What is the name that many of the lobbying firms are located on in Washington D.C.?
a. B Street
b. Money Lane
c. K Street
d. G.W. B. Avenue
5. Which group, not firm, is the highest spending lobbying client?
a. US Chamber of Commerce
b. Exxon Mobile
c. Freddie Mac
d. General Electric
6. What is an earmark?
a. A provision in a bill that provides funds for a specific project usually related to one congressman or group.
b. A hold put on a bill by the opposing party to delay its approval.
c. A way to cut unnecessary government spending.
d. A new type of jewelry.
7. What is lobbying?
a. Efforts made by politicians to uncover the needs of their districts.
b. A process through which politicians attempt to distance themselves from their districts.
c. A way for the everyday person to get rich.
d. A way to attempt to influence the activity of the government.
8. The term lobbyist originated around which year?
a. 2005
b. 1830
c. 2004
d. 1950
9. Which of the following is a lobbied sector?
a. Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate
b. Health
c. Defense
d. All of the above
10. How much did Exxon Mobil spend on Lobbying in 2008?
a. About $1,000,000
b. About $11,000,000
c. About $18,000,000
d. About $25,000,000
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Question to a classmate's blog..."Being a science major myself, I understand the basis behind your convictions and have spent much of the last four years here in the same environment. Because the idea that organisms evovle is supported by so much evidence, I find arguing that point rather difficult. I do, however, like to move past that portion of the discussion and focus on the start. How do you feel about the idea of creational evolution? What I mean by this is that it's obvious that evolution is real, but how did it start? If time began with the big bang theory, how did the matter arise to initiate this environment? I don't expect anyone to have to answer for these questions but am more interested in your opinion."
One thing I learned from this blog was a statistic that 90% of scientists are aetheist or agnostic. I am not sure of the validity of this statistic, but even so, that number suprised me as being high. I enjoyed the person's blog as I always like to hear everyone's opinion and this author, in particular, seemed to know their side of the story quite well.
One thing I learned from this blog was a statistic that 90% of scientists are aetheist or agnostic. I am not sure of the validity of this statistic, but even so, that number suprised me as being high. I enjoyed the person's blog as I always like to hear everyone's opinion and this author, in particular, seemed to know their side of the story quite well.
Monday, November 10, 2008
The podcast that I listened to was titled, “Lobbyists and Politicians- The Ethical Issue.” The podcast was made by the Emerging Issues Group at Santa Clara University.
As indicated by the title, the group discussed lobbyist relations with politicians. The three main issues covered in the podcast related to lobbyist access to politicians, the transparency of the relations between the two groups, and the common good of these relations in regards to the general public. The bulk of the discussion dealt with the relations that often result from the many encounters that politicians have with the same lobbyists over their careers and whether or not these friendships that develop should be allowed. The content of the conversation was useful in that it was unbiased, giving both sides of the argument on the ethicality of these relations. As all members of the group seemed to be very well read on the issue, it was interesting to hear several examples of politician/lobbyist relations that have occurred and been well known of in the past. The most interesting of these stories to me was hearing the Ford administration had been almost completely planned in the dining room of a top lobbyist for Proctor and Gamble with whom President Gerald Ford has close ties. I cannot imagine the consequences of such a relationship today, but it is interesting to see that these connections are nothing new to American politics. I also learned of a new view point of view to examine that supports an active role of lobbyists in government. This view point, of a man named Adam Smith, argues transparency in lobbying rather than a complete restriction of the process. Smith argues that lobbying should not be restricted as it is the right of the people to support their common good through mechanisms of petitioning and influencing the government. This point of view seems to argue that lobbying is crucial to the democratic process and removing it would completely change the system. I am interested to inspect this source a bit more to find out how Smith’s ideas of transparency would affect Big Business Lobbying.
As indicated by the title, the group discussed lobbyist relations with politicians. The three main issues covered in the podcast related to lobbyist access to politicians, the transparency of the relations between the two groups, and the common good of these relations in regards to the general public. The bulk of the discussion dealt with the relations that often result from the many encounters that politicians have with the same lobbyists over their careers and whether or not these friendships that develop should be allowed. The content of the conversation was useful in that it was unbiased, giving both sides of the argument on the ethicality of these relations. As all members of the group seemed to be very well read on the issue, it was interesting to hear several examples of politician/lobbyist relations that have occurred and been well known of in the past. The most interesting of these stories to me was hearing the Ford administration had been almost completely planned in the dining room of a top lobbyist for Proctor and Gamble with whom President Gerald Ford has close ties. I cannot imagine the consequences of such a relationship today, but it is interesting to see that these connections are nothing new to American politics. I also learned of a new view point of view to examine that supports an active role of lobbyists in government. This view point, of a man named Adam Smith, argues transparency in lobbying rather than a complete restriction of the process. Smith argues that lobbying should not be restricted as it is the right of the people to support their common good through mechanisms of petitioning and influencing the government. This point of view seems to argue that lobbying is crucial to the democratic process and removing it would completely change the system. I am interested to inspect this source a bit more to find out how Smith’s ideas of transparency would affect Big Business Lobbying.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
http://writtenweird.blogspot.com/2008/11/eight-easy-ways-to-save-american.html
interesting blog. asked question at 12:40 on 11/05/09.
interesting blog. asked question at 12:40 on 11/05/09.
Monday, November 3, 2008
The Bush Administration and Preemption
While reading a blog by “A Georgia Lawyer” entitled, FOIAs Reveal How Bush Administration Made Complete Immunity for Negligent Corporations a Top Priority, I came across the term, preemption, that I was not aware of before. I idea of preemption allows federal rules to null the rights of the states in certain situations. The example being used involved consumer protection rights that were being undermined by federal rules to protect large corporations. I personally can not think of a more blatant example of an advantage or lobbying for big businesses. These tactics have been used by the Bush administration to disallow a state to call for stricter safety standards. Preemption has even prevented anyone harmed through corporation negligence to use their state’s protection orders against the company.
The idea of Preemptions only deepens my suspicion and dislike for Big Business Lobbyists. It is easy to see that rules and regulations such as this one do serve their purpose of protection as in the right case a corporation could legitimately be saved from large scale negligence lawsuits. The protection they provide, however, is protection for the business and not for the person. I understand that these corporations, especially the pharmaceuticals, could potentially be wiped out by the right lawsuit, but preemptions are not the solution to this problem. The solution is a more intense regulation of the production and marketing of Big Business products which will protect both the consumer and the producer in the long run.
While reading a blog by “A Georgia Lawyer” entitled, FOIAs Reveal How Bush Administration Made Complete Immunity for Negligent Corporations a Top Priority, I came across the term, preemption, that I was not aware of before. I idea of preemption allows federal rules to null the rights of the states in certain situations. The example being used involved consumer protection rights that were being undermined by federal rules to protect large corporations. I personally can not think of a more blatant example of an advantage or lobbying for big businesses. These tactics have been used by the Bush administration to disallow a state to call for stricter safety standards. Preemption has even prevented anyone harmed through corporation negligence to use their state’s protection orders against the company.
The idea of Preemptions only deepens my suspicion and dislike for Big Business Lobbyists. It is easy to see that rules and regulations such as this one do serve their purpose of protection as in the right case a corporation could legitimately be saved from large scale negligence lawsuits. The protection they provide, however, is protection for the business and not for the person. I understand that these corporations, especially the pharmaceuticals, could potentially be wiped out by the right lawsuit, but preemptions are not the solution to this problem. The solution is a more intense regulation of the production and marketing of Big Business products which will protect both the consumer and the producer in the long run.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
The Views of the Candidates
When it comes to lobbyist involvement in government, Senator Barack Obama has taken a clear stance. Obama’s campaign not only refuses to accept contributions from federal lobbyists or political action committees but also addresses lobbyist involvement in government as a problem and has come up with actions to end it. Two of his ideas include making the lobbyist involvement more visible to the American people by creating an internet database of lobbyist activities and putting an end to no-bid contracts. Under his plan, any contract over the amount of $25,000 would have to be competitively awarded. About lobbyists, Sen. Barack Obama was quoted as saying, “I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists — and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president.”
(http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/)
(http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/08/obama-has-lobby.html)
Senator McCain’s views on lobbyists are not nearly as clear as those of Senator Obama’s. While researching McCain’s views towards this subject, I found that McCain has denounced lobbyist involvement in politics, however, due to the history of his relationships with lobbyists, I determined that while he may not out rightly support lobbyists, he certainly is not opposed to them. McCain’s political career has not only benefited financially from lobbyists, it is currently benefiting tactically from them as well. As of right now, seven of McCain’s top campaign managers and officials were at one time lobbyists. It doesn’t seem that this is the first time McCain has surrounded himself by lobbyists, however, as mccainslobbyists.com shows almost forty lobbyists that he has dealt with in his career.
(http://www.mccainslobbyists.com/)
(http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/09/mccain.lobbying/)
Personally, I am not against lobbyist involvement in government, but I am against allowing these groups to use money as a means of accomplishing their goals. If the objective of their efforts is logical or fair, it seems to me that money would not be needed in order to gain the aid of an elected official. I know there are people who view the campaign contributions and other monetary benefits given as merely a way to keep an elected official with the same views as the lobbying group in power and not to influence that politician’s decisions. In a perfect world this might be plausible. In this world, however, too many politicians use these contributions as a form of job security and allow the lobbying groups to steer the course of many decisions.
Video of Obama's View:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzuPfQuNIcE
Video of McCain's View:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgq5I8l6h7E
When it comes to lobbyist involvement in government, Senator Barack Obama has taken a clear stance. Obama’s campaign not only refuses to accept contributions from federal lobbyists or political action committees but also addresses lobbyist involvement in government as a problem and has come up with actions to end it. Two of his ideas include making the lobbyist involvement more visible to the American people by creating an internet database of lobbyist activities and putting an end to no-bid contracts. Under his plan, any contract over the amount of $25,000 would have to be competitively awarded. About lobbyists, Sen. Barack Obama was quoted as saying, “I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists — and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president.”
(http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/)
(http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/08/obama-has-lobby.html)
Senator McCain’s views on lobbyists are not nearly as clear as those of Senator Obama’s. While researching McCain’s views towards this subject, I found that McCain has denounced lobbyist involvement in politics, however, due to the history of his relationships with lobbyists, I determined that while he may not out rightly support lobbyists, he certainly is not opposed to them. McCain’s political career has not only benefited financially from lobbyists, it is currently benefiting tactically from them as well. As of right now, seven of McCain’s top campaign managers and officials were at one time lobbyists. It doesn’t seem that this is the first time McCain has surrounded himself by lobbyists, however, as mccainslobbyists.com shows almost forty lobbyists that he has dealt with in his career.
(http://www.mccainslobbyists.com/)
(http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/09/mccain.lobbying/)
Personally, I am not against lobbyist involvement in government, but I am against allowing these groups to use money as a means of accomplishing their goals. If the objective of their efforts is logical or fair, it seems to me that money would not be needed in order to gain the aid of an elected official. I know there are people who view the campaign contributions and other monetary benefits given as merely a way to keep an elected official with the same views as the lobbying group in power and not to influence that politician’s decisions. In a perfect world this might be plausible. In this world, however, too many politicians use these contributions as a form of job security and allow the lobbying groups to steer the course of many decisions.
Video of Obama's View:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzuPfQuNIcE
Video of McCain's View:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgq5I8l6h7E
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)