Metro Jacksonville

Saturday, November 5, 2011
Congressman: 'It's good to be with the 1%'
 
Not what you'd call a smart man.

We're not kidding. Teamsters heard Florida congressman John Mica utter those very words.
Mica is so virulently anti-worker that he was willing to force his own constituents out of their jobs. He's the bozo who shut down the FAA. Now he wants to destroy Amtrak. Talk about a baby with a nail gun.

(http://dc.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/micacommuterrail196f-300x190.jpg)

Anyhoo, Mica was speaking on Tuesday at RailTrends 2011, a confab for the rail industry in New York City. Our brothers from the Teamsters Rail Conference were there along with the 1 percent. They couldn't quite believe their ears, but when Mica took the podium he actually said it:

It's good to be with the 1 percent.

We'd like to remind the congressman of his math. "Ninety nine" is greater than "one," and he has to win "51" percent of the vote to stay in his nice nailgun-wielding office. 

http://teamsternation.blogspot.com/2011/11/congressman-its-good-to-be-with-1.html

Well, Mica can say whatever the hell he wants since he is congressman for life.

Only a scandal or death will open up his spot for replacement.

95% of incumbents get re-elected no matter how bad they are.

And you all DO know that the 1% doesn't have a need for TRANSIT:

Say bye bye to any new transit anywhere:

Tuesday, March 22, 2011 Comment here
WSJ: Mica Says Transit Funding Will Stay “About the Same” (LIAR)
by Tanya Snyder on March 22, 2011



(http://blog.tstc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/bill_comparisons.png)

Update 3:35 p.m.: Transportation Committee staff says Mica has confirmed what he meant: “He was referring to the share. Keep in mind that we have no numbers or details for a bill yet â€" the hearing process is not yet finished and we have not drafted a bill. He was simply speculating at this point.”

Using the chart above as a guide, keeping transit’s share of funding (rather than the absolute number) is bad news if the bill is smaller than the last one. If the committee keeps spending to current Highway Trust Fund levels, that would mean a smaller bill and less for transit.

He didn’t say it in front of several hundred transit officials, and he didn’t say it afterward when questioned by a gaggle of reporters. But the Wall Street Journal reported Transportation Committee Chair John Mica told a reporter at last week’s American Public Transportation Association conference, “I think [public transportation funding]’s going to have to stay about the same.”



Photo: Orlando Sentinel

Mica has been unwilling to talk numbers with other reporters (including this one) and has said again and again that he doesn’t have a bill written. He has said he wants a big bill, and he supported Jim Oberstar’s $450 billion transportation plan in 2009. But his committee’s official response to the president’s budget tells another story, one that puts the Journal quote: With the Highway Trust Fund nearing insolvency, no viable plans to replenish it, no allowance for infusions from the general fund, and no chance of passing a bill that’s not explicitly paid for, the clear result would be flat â€" or reduced â€" transportation spending.

This scenario, however, doesn’t take into consideration the economic benefits of transportation investments. Spending for infrastructure isn’t just “spending” â€" it creates jobs and (ahem) paves the way for economic growth. Futuristic subways in Asia and bus rapid transit systems in Latin America are leaving the U.S. behind, and that’s not lost on concerned U.S. politicians and economists. Modern, efficient transportation infrastructure is an engine for economic growth. And growth is a far better mechanism for drawing down the deficit than reckless cutting that hamstrings the country’s competitiveness for years to come.

We’re trying to confirm that Mica is, in fact, expecting flat transit funding and trying to clarify exactly what he meant. As Ya-Ting Liu of the Tri-State Transportation Campaign wrote in Mobilizing the Region, it depends what the meaning of “about the same” is:


Does he mean that transit’s share of federal transportation funding will stay the same, or that the actual dollar amount dedicated to transit will stay the same? These two scenarios have very different implications for transit, especially with a smaller transportation bill.

I’ve asked Mica about the highway/transit ratio, which has historically been 80/20 but which the president wants to bump to something more like 74/26. He hasn’t had an answer on that.

Ya-Ting also astutely points out that “more than 84% of transit agencies across the country have already consolidated their operations over the past couple of years â€" that is, by cutting service, with devastating impacts to the transit riding public.” The constant directive from Capitol Hill to “do more with less” raises the hackles of local transportation officials, who have noted that they tend to “do less with less.”

We’ll fill you in when we hear more details from Mica’s office.

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/03/22/wsj-mica-says-transit-funding-will-stay-%E2%80%9Cabout-the-same%E2%80%9D/

Reminds me of the George W quote:

"This is an impressive crowd-- the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite. I call you my base."

Quote from: copperfiend on November 07, 2011, 09:42:20 AM
Reminds me of the George W quote:

"This is an impressive crowd-- the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite. I call you my base."

Brilliant...........sometimes they just can't hide their disdain for the 99%!

It's just so easy to label the 99% lazy while they party in their million dollar yachts.

And he doesn't need to worry about upsetting the 99% because a portion of them will vote for him regardless. But he has to cater to the 1% because they finance him.

Quote from: copperfiend on November 07, 2011, 11:25:12 AM
And he doesn't need to worry about upsetting the 99% because a portion of them will vote for him regardless. But he has to cater to the 1% because they finance him.

Yeah, some will passionately defend the ruling 1%, as their ever loyal foot soldiers. All the while being hurt and robbed by the 1 %.

Robbed of a decent transit system, robbed of their hard-earned money as they are nickle and dimed by the 1% imposing ever more regressive fees and fine print. ($5 debit card fee is the most recent example).

Of course the 1% is never ripped off with excessive over-draft fees or debit card usage fees. Nor will they ever need a functioning transit system. They simply don't have those worries that the 99% has.

Meanwhile the 1% tells them to blame everything on "government," to avert attention to the real culprit: the 1% themselves who control government for us, through heavy legal bribery.

The Idiot's Guide for the 1% to Mingle and Buy a Congressman.

After being released from prison, Jack Abramoff speaks out on his Lobbying firm which "owned" over 100 congressmen including Tom Delay.........and most of it is still going on. This 60 min. episode aired this past weekend:

Crooked lobbyist Jack Abramoff explains how he asserted his influence in Congress for years, and how such BRIBERY continues today despite ethics reform.

http://www.cbs.com/primetime/60_minutes/video/?pid=_astT8R0eClkmnB_ZAiM4Qja8L4YBItY&vs=homepage&play=true

2006:  "It's a dizzying scope of perfidy and politics that boggles the imagination, and although Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay have been brought down, the system remains as vulnerable as ever," says Bill Moyers. "The scale of corruption still coming to light dwarfs anything since Watergate. In one sense it's the age-old tale of greed, but greed encouraged now by the way our system works.

Deep in the plea agreements of Jack Abramoff and his cronies is the admission that they conspired to use campaign contributions to bribe politicians; campaign finance is at the core of the corruption. They took great pains to cover their tracks, and they might have pulled it off except for a handful of honest people, and the work of some enterprising print reporters, Senate investigators, and the ethics team at the department of justice. Following the money in this story leads through a bizarre maze of cocktail parties, golf courses, private jets, four-star restaurants, sweatshops - and the aura of chandeliered rooms frequented by the high and mighty of Washington."

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/capitol/

Watch the Capitol Crimes series on Abramoff here, expecially Part V on Ralph Reed, where they turn on each other:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/generic.html?s=moyj06p2fe

And Mica still parties with disgraced former congressman Tom Delay, Abramoff's best bud.

Maybe if he made these comments before he was elected, we wouldn't have to endure this smear campaign from Faye.

Quote from: Captain Zissou on November 08, 2011, 01:50:01 PM
Maybe if he made these comments before he was elected, we wouldn't have to endure this smear campaign from Faye.

You mean to say he won't get elected AFTER he makes these comments?

Don't worry, he will be elected again in 2012 as he has EVERY 2 YEARS............ 10 times already!

Some kind of Democracy we have  :o

A Democracy where legal bribery of government abounds with impunity except for a few bribing lobbyists like Abramoff who happen to get caught.

John Mica is a strong supporter of corporate welfare, like wanting to privatize the only profitable Amtrak line and also now wanting to privatize the TSA.

Only problem is that he has NO jurisdiction over the TSA!!!

QuoteJohn Mica Has No Legal Power Over TSA, But Pushes The Jurisdictional Boundaries



First Posted: 10/30/11 09:29 AM ET Updated: 10/30/11 09:29 AM ET


WASHINGTON -- The powerful chairman of a key congressional committee is expected to release another scathing report on the federal agency that protects the nation's airports as early as this week.

The only problem is that Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.) doesn't have any legal jurisdiction over the Transportation Security Administration. As he often notes, he did help create his "little bastard child" -- but the committee he now heads, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (T&I), is no longer the boss of the TSA.

The T&I committee had sway over the TSA when it was formed soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. But when the TSA and all or part of 21 other departments were melded into a new Department of Homeland Security, decision-making authority was transferred to the House Committee on Homeland Security.

Mica is a member of a subcommittee of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee responsible for homeland defense, which includes TSA. Yet his argument last June for privatizing the agency, "TSA Ignores More Cost-Effective Screening Model," came out as a "T&I committee oversight and investigations staff report."

The webpage of Republicans' T&I committee lists TSA "oversight" among its "current issues," noting the committee "is monitoring the programs and performance" of the agency as well as "working to reform and reduce the size of this massive bureaucracy."

Most committee chairmen on Capitol Hill are fiercely protective of their turf while eager to expand their territory, but "Mica stands out" in the 112th Congress, said Norman Ornstein, a congressional expert at the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute.

While some have suggested that Mica's crusade to privatize the TSA may be related to campaign contributions from security companies that would stand to profit, Ornstein is willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.




"Ego is the first word to mention with John Mica," he said. "This is somebody who has reveled in his role as chairman of the committee who doesn't want to recognize any jurisdictional boundaries."

And that has enraged the lawmakers who really do have TSA oversight -- though they have been more diplomatic than Mica, who last week called a TSA pilot program "idiotic."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/29/john-mica-tsa_n_1064438.html

A congressman who is a very arrogant and secure member of the 1%!

John Mica is like all the rest of them. Elected by stupid people who aren't smart enough to study the facts and realize as long as people like Mica stay in office the "have nots," will soon be the "have nothings."

Quote from: avonjax on November 08, 2011, 03:58:38 PM
John Mica is like all the rest of them. Elected by stupid people who aren't smart enough to study the facts and realize as long as people like Mica stay in office the "have nots," will soon be the "have nothings."

Yeah, people who don't even know that John Mica doesn't work for them since they cannot afford to buy a lobbyist.

Here is a list of lobbyists that John Mica works for:

Lobbyists who donated to John Mica for Congress in 2011
October 26, 2011 By First Street Admin Leave a Comment

We are pulling together a report focused on House leaders working on Transportation legislation.  Be on the lookout for that, in the meantime, this list didn’t make the report, but we thought it was interesting:

Lobbyists who donated to John Mica for Congress in 2011

■Andrew Athy Jr. (O’Neill, Athy & Casey, P.C.)
■Charles Black (Prime Policy Group)
■James Bonham (Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP)
■John R Brimsek (The Law Offices of John R. Brimsek, PC)
■Robert William Chamberlin (McBee Strategic Consulting, LLC.)
■Arthur H Chan (Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP)
■June Dehart (Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP)
■John A Devierno (Mr. John A. Devierno)
■Melinda Dutton (Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP)
■Eric Paul Ebeling (American Shipping & Logistics Group; Technology Association of America, Inc.)
■Bruce Fennie Mr. (Bruce Fennie & Associates)
■Anthony Fiori (Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP)
■Duane R Gibson (Govbiz Advantage, Inc.)
■Peter Gleason (Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP (K&L Gates))
■Shawn Hodjati (Steptoe & Johnson, LLP)
■Susan Ingargiola (Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP)
■Stephanie Kanwit (Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP)
■Michael E Korens (Mr. Michael Korens)
■Daniel Mattoon Sr (Mattoon & Associates, LLC)
■Rich Meade (Education Finance Council, Inc.; Prime Policy Group)
■Robert E Mills (JB Advocacy, LLC; The Advocacy Group)
■John Milne (mCapitol Management)
■Charles R Mullett (Con-Way Inc (formerly known as Cnf Inc))
■Elizabeth Mundinger (Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP)
■Tristan North (American Ambulance Association)
■MacK Paul (Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP (K&L Gates))
■Tim L. Peckinpaugh (Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP (K&L Gates))
■Karen Borlaug Phillips (Canadian National Railway Company)
■Emanuel L Rouvelas (Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP (K&L Gates))
■Mark Ruge (Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP (K&L Gates))
■John Runyan (Runyan Public Affairs, LLC)
■Shawn H Smeallie (American Continental Group)
■William F Stiers (Balch & Bingham LLP)

http://firststreetresearch.cqpress.com/2011/10/26/lobbyists-who-donated-to-john-mica-for-congress-in-2011/

This is why John Mica was bragging about why "it's good to be with the 1%"

http://www.youtube.com/v/x95uC_wzUX4

Quote from: FayeforCure on November 12, 2011, 07:21:15 PM
Yeah, people who don't even know that John Mica doesn't work for them since they cannot afford to buy a lobbyist.

enough already Faye....

While I personally have never hired a lobbyist, I work and volunteer with groups that have lobbyists....examples include the American Planning Association as well as its Florida Chapter.

Are you really trying to say that there aren't any lobbyists working on behalf of causes or issues that you consider important?

Quote from: tufsu1 on November 16, 2011, 11:37:56 AM

Quote from: FayeforCure on November 12, 2011, 07:21:15 PM
Yeah, people who don't even know that John Mica doesn't work for them since they cannot afford to buy a lobbyist.

enough already Faye....

While I personally have never hired a lobbyist, I work and volunteer with groups that have lobbyists....examples include the American Planning Association as well as its Florida Chapter.

Are you really trying to say that there aren't any lobbyists working on behalf of causes or issues that you consider important?

Your agressive defense of the status quo that has 17,000 lobbyists, or about 38 per congressman, is always so shocking.

Obviously Planned Parenthood will be able to spend less on lobbying that the American Planning Association.

It is clear that industries that spend more on lobbying get far more attention, than a mere citizen advocate like myself was able to garner.

I was a citizen advocate for stem cell research and patient safety, and competing with paid lobbyists or even religous groups was just about impossible.

So, to answer your question, there aren't many lobbyists working on behalf of issues that are near and dear to my heart and that of many others in the 99%

Lobbyists use their time both with legislators, to explain the issues of the organizations which they represent, and with their clients to explain the obstacles elected officials face when dealing with these issues. Many of these lobbyists are employed by lobbying firms or by law firms, which retain clients outside lobbying, other lobbyists are employed directly by advocacy groups, trade associations, companies, and state and local governments. In 2007 there were over 17,000 federal lobbyists based in Washington, DC.[1]

The top sectors and their total spending between 1998 and 2010 were:[29]




Client

Amount Spent

Percentage of Total[30]



1. Finance, Insurance & Real Estate

$4,274,060,331

14.53%



2. Health

$4,222,427,808

14.53%



3. Misc Business

$4,149,842,571

14.11%



4. Communications/Electronics

$3,497,881,399

11.89%



5. Energy & Natural Resources

$3,104,104,518

10.55%



6. Transportation

$2,245,118,222

7.63%



7. Other

$2,207,772,363

7.50%



8. Ideological/Single-Issue

$1,477,294,241

5.02%



9. Agribusiness

$1,280,824,983

4.12%



10. Defense

$1,216,469,173

4.13%



11. Construction

$480,363,108

1.63%



12. Labor

$427,355,408

1.45%



13. Lawyers & Lobbyists themselves

$336,170,306

1.14%


Note: These amounts do not include campaign contributions.[31]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States

Hmmm, what I see is BIG Finance, Big Insurance, Big Oil, Big Pharma and BIG transportation drowning out the rest.

Not what I call an economic democracy, or government for the people.

Quote from: FayeforCure on November 16, 2011, 02:59:21 PM

Quote from: tufsu1 on November 16, 2011, 11:37:56 AM

Quote from: FayeforCure on November 12, 2011, 07:21:15 PM
Yeah, people who don't even know that John Mica doesn't work for them since they cannot afford to buy a lobbyist.

enough already Faye....

While I personally have never hired a lobbyist, I work and volunteer with groups that have lobbyists....examples include the American Planning Association as well as its Florida Chapter.

Are you really trying to say that there aren't any lobbyists working on behalf of causes or issues that you consider important?

Your agressive defense of the status quo that has 17,000 lobbyists, or about 38 per congressman, is always so shocking.

Obviously Planned Parenthood will be able to spend less on lobbying that the American Planning Association.

huh?  my defense is always so shocking?  as if I defend Congress so often?

btw...I'm willing to bet that Planned Parenthood spends more $ nationally on lobbyists than the American Planning Association does....here in Florida (the second largest chapter in the nation), we spend roughly $40,000 a year for our legislative affairs staff person...care to guess what PP spends?

and while we're at it Faye, looking at lobbyists as proprtionate to members of Congress is one method...another is to say that there are 300 million people in the U.S....so the 17,000 lobbyists amounts to about 1 for every 17,500 people

Quote from: tufsu1 on November 16, 2011, 04:47:30 PM

Quote from: FayeforCure on November 16, 2011, 02:59:21 PM

Quote from: tufsu1 on November 16, 2011, 11:37:56 AM

Quote from: FayeforCure on November 12, 2011, 07:21:15 PM
Yeah, people who don't even know that John Mica doesn't work for them since they cannot afford to buy a lobbyist.

enough already Faye....

While I personally have never hired a lobbyist, I work and volunteer with groups that have lobbyists....examples include the American Planning Association as well as its Florida Chapter.

Are you really trying to say that there aren't any lobbyists working on behalf of causes or issues that you consider important?

Your agressive defense of the status quo that has 17,000 lobbyists, or about 38 per congressman, is always so shocking.

Obviously Planned Parenthood will be able to spend less on lobbying that the American Planning Association.

huh?  my defense is always so shocking?  as if I defend Congress so often?

btw...I'm willing to bet that Planned Parenthood spends more $ nationally on lobbyists than the American Planning Association does....here in Florida (the second largest chapter in the nation), we spend roughly $40,000 a year for our legislative affairs staff person...care to guess what PP spends?

and while we're at it Faye, looking at lobbyists as proprtionate to members of Congress is one method...another is to say that there are 300 million people in the U.S....so the 17,000 lobbyists amounts to about 1 for every 17,500 people

Actually I would hope Planned Parenthood would have more lobbying power than your association. After all, there are at least 150,000,000 females in this country, and a very small group of extremists are trying to limit women's choices:

Quote
The Other 99%

Posted: 11/16/11 05:46 PM ET


There's not a lot we agree on in this country. And yet, there is one topic around which there is practically universal agreement: the right of women to access birth control.

That's right -- 99% of women in the U.S. who have been sexually active have used birth control. It's used by women of every demographic, every geographic location, every income level -- and every religious group.

So does it sound crazy that a small group of religious leaders and tea-party Republicans are fighting to eliminate women's access to birth control?

But that's exactly what's happening. Right now in Washington, D.C., a small but influential group is lobbying the White House to prevent millions of women in America from having equal access to birth control under insurance plans. It seems as though having one of the highest unintended pregnancy rates, not to mention the highest teen pregnancy rate, among the world's most developed countries isn't enough -- we've got to make it even harder for women to access family planning.

The dangerous proposal put forth by this vocal minority tries to take advantage of an unfair exemption crafted by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that allows certain religious employers to opt out of the new federal requirement that insurance plans include birth control and other preventive services with no co-pay.

But here's the thing: The HHS definition of "a "religious employer" applies to nonprofit organizations that have instilling religious values as their purpose and whose employees and clients share their religious tenets. In other words, religious institutions such as churches are already exempted.

But these lobbyists are trying to expand this definition to include religiously affiliated colleges, universities, medical schools, hospitals, social service organizations, schools, you name it -- so that these organizations will be able to refuse birth control coverage for their employees as well. This, despite the fact that these institutions in large part neither employ nor serve individuals who share their religious beliefs. In fact, they are open to and serve the public.

The result of such an expansion would be nothing short of tragic for millions of Americans and their families. Nearly 800,000 people work at Catholic hospitals and there are approximately two million students and workers at universities that have a religious affiliation. This expansion would impact all of these individuals -- as well as their dependents, denying them a benefit that finally makes an essential health care service affordable.

An expanded refusal policy for any organization claiming to be "religious" would amount to the single most damaging refusal provision around birth control ever implemented. In fact, it would set a standard as bad as or even worse than the refusal provision that George W. Bush put into place near the end of his administration -- and that President Obama sensibly and swiftly dismantled.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cecile-richards/the-other-99_b_1098313.html

The sick mindset of extremist Republicans takes freedom away from women.

So we should ban lobbyists?  or just lobbyists with "Big" before their name.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 17, 2011, 07:21:03 AM
So we should ban lobbyists?  or just lobbyists with "Big" before their name.

Thank you so much for that question.

I think corporate lobbying should be banned, as should be banned the front groups that are funded by corporations.

Here is an interesting website on efforts made in Europe by Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO)  to expose and eliminate corporate lobbying from pursuing bad policy that undermines the needs of the people.

Quote
Lobbycracy


Brussels is at the centre of EU decision-making and as such attracts thousands of lobbyists, promoting the interests of big business. Easily outnumbering and outspending public interest groups, corporate lobbyists are also given privileged access by the European institutions. The emerging lobbycracy results in flawed policies that put commercial interests above those of people and the environment and undermines the very basis of democracy.

http://www.corporateeurope.org/what-we-do

http://www.corporateeurope.org/about

These young folks understand that legal bribery is undermining our economic democracy!

(http://www.corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/team_retreat_2011_crop.jpg)

What about the US Chamber of Commerce?

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s

QuoteLobbying Client Total 1998 - 2011

US Chamber of Commerce $785,065,680
American Medical Assn $259,467,500
General Electric $257,590,000
AARP $210,182,064
Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America $209,203,920
American Hospital Assn $208,993,836
Blue Cross/Blue Shield $174,370,552
National Assn of Realtors $172,231,698
Northrop Grumman $167,645,253
Exxon Mobil $166,722,742
Verizon Communications $161,234,841
Edison Electric Institute $156,585,999
Business Roundtable $153,620,000
Boeing Co $151,704,310
Lockheed Martin $146,267,373
AT&T Inc $130,749,336
Southern Co $126,280,694
General Motors $123,679,170
PG&E Corp $119,580,000
Pfizer Inc $118,227,268

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 17, 2011, 10:21:24 AM
What about the US Chamber of Commerce?

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s

QuoteLobbying Client Total 1998 - 2011

US Chamber of Commerce $785,065,680
American Medical Assn $259,467,500
General Electric $257,590,000
AARP $210,182,064
Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America $209,203,920
American Hospital Assn $208,993,836
Blue Cross/Blue Shield $174,370,552
National Assn of Realtors $172,231,698
Northrop Grumman $167,645,253
Exxon Mobil $166,722,742
Verizon Communications $161,234,841
Edison Electric Institute $156,585,999
Business Roundtable $153,620,000
Boeing Co $151,704,310
Lockheed Martin $146,267,373
AT&T Inc $130,749,336
Southern Co $126,280,694
General Motors $123,679,170
PG&E Corp $119,580,000
Pfizer Inc $118,227,268

That's a prime example of corporate lobbying that needs to be banned.

Hey they only endorse Republicans anyway, with a few Dems sprinkled in. ;)

Would you agree that "corporate lobbyists" also advocate for causes and legislation that you yourself support?  The reason I ask is where is the line drawn?  Is any incorporated business banned from hiring advocates on its behalf?

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 17, 2011, 10:38:03 AM
Would you agree that "corporate lobbyists" also advocate for causes and legislation that you yourself support?  The reason I ask is where is the line drawn?  Is any incorporated business banned from hiring advocates on its behalf?

Sure, the green energy industry.........windmills etc. But they don't need lobbyists.

A congress person's staff can gather and analyze info. independently from lobbyists.

Lobbying is simply "legal bribery," that provides hugely skewed info. and even writes legislation for a congressman.

Quote from: FayeforCure on November 17, 2011, 10:31:19 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 17, 2011, 10:21:24 AM
What about the US Chamber of Commerce?

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s

QuoteLobbying Client Total 1998 - 2011

US Chamber of Commerce $785,065,680
American Medical Assn $259,467,500
General Electric $257,590,000
AARP $210,182,064
Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America $209,203,920
American Hospital Assn $208,993,836
Blue Cross/Blue Shield $174,370,552
National Assn of Realtors $172,231,698
Northrop Grumman $167,645,253
Exxon Mobil $166,722,742
Verizon Communications $161,234,841
Edison Electric Institute $156,585,999
Business Roundtable $153,620,000
Boeing Co $151,704,310
Lockheed Martin $146,267,373
AT&T Inc $130,749,336
Southern Co $126,280,694
General Motors $123,679,170
PG&E Corp $119,580,000
Pfizer Inc $118,227,268

That's a prime example of corporate lobbying that needs to be banned.

Hey they only endorse Republicans anyway, with a few Dems sprinkled in. ;)

Interesting... considering 7 of the top ten recipients of lobbyist cash are democrats...

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lobby_contribs.php



Type of Recipeint:  Politicians

Recipient From Lobbyists

Harry Reid (D-Nev) $942,388 $1,042,738
Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark) $647,738 $720,188
Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) $616,093 $666,243
Rob Portman (R-Ohio) $548,174 $637,524
Patty Murray (D-Wash) $472,096 $514,495
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) $389,086 $427,086
Roy Blunt (R-Mo) $377,790 $468,940
Kendrick B. Meek (D-Fla) $350,072 $371,772
Richard Burr (R-NC) $330,686 $373,867
Michael F. Bennet (D-Colo) $317,909 $354,508

Quote from: FayeforCure on November 17, 2011, 10:51:39 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 17, 2011, 10:38:03 AM
Would you agree that "corporate lobbyists" also advocate for causes and legislation that you yourself support?  The reason I ask is where is the line drawn?  Is any incorporated business banned from hiring advocates on its behalf?

Sure, the green energy industry.........windmills etc. But they don't need lobbyists.

A congress person's staff can gather and analyze info. independently from lobbyists.

Lobbying is simply "legal bribery," that provides hugely skewed info. and even writes legislation for a congressman.

um, ok...fact is what Congress can do and does do in terms of research and analysis are 2 different things.

and don't kid yourself.....without green industry lobbyists, the tax credits and initiatives being pushed by Democrats these days wouldn't be happening.

Quote from: FayeforCure on November 17, 2011, 10:51:39 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 17, 2011, 10:38:03 AM
Would you agree that "corporate lobbyists" also advocate for causes and legislation that you yourself support?  The reason I ask is where is the line drawn?  Is any incorporated business banned from hiring advocates on its behalf?

Sure, the green energy industry.........windmills etc. But they don't need lobbyists.

A congress person's staff can gather and analyze info. independently from lobbyists.

Lobbying is simply "legal bribery," that provides hugely skewed info. and even writes legislation for a congressman.

So you would ban lobbyists advocating their windmill product?  Or a company advocating to construct a high speed rail line?  How about a manufacturer of streetcars?  All of these are corporations who lobby for various projects... some you may feel are worthy and good... others you may feel are evil and unworthy.  Banning lobbying from all incorporated business seems to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 17, 2011, 10:57:15 AM

Quote from: FayeforCure on November 17, 2011, 10:51:39 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 17, 2011, 10:38:03 AM
Would you agree that "corporate lobbyists" also advocate for causes and legislation that you yourself support?  The reason I ask is where is the line drawn?  Is any incorporated business banned from hiring advocates on its behalf?

Sure, the green energy industry.........windmills etc. But they don't need lobbyists.

A congress person's staff can gather and analyze info. independently from lobbyists.

Lobbying is simply "legal bribery," that provides hugely skewed info. and even writes legislation for a congressman.

So you would ban lobbyists advocating their windmill product?  Or a company advocating to construct a high speed rail line?  How about a manufacturer of streetcars?  All of these are corporations who lobby for various projects... some you may feel are worthy and good... others you may feel are evil and unworthy.  Banning lobbying from all incorporated business seems to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

What is wrong with a congressman having qualified staff that can do independent research?

There is a wealth of knowledge even among the people that post here.

We can even use academic independent research if need be.

No need to use the hugely skewed info from corporations directly, without filtering it independently.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 17, 2011, 10:57:15 AM

Quote from: FayeforCure on November 17, 2011, 10:51:39 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 17, 2011, 10:38:03 AM
Would you agree that "corporate lobbyists" also advocate for causes and legislation that you yourself support?  The reason I ask is where is the line drawn?  Is any incorporated business banned from hiring advocates on its behalf?

Sure, the green energy industry.........windmills etc. But they don't need lobbyists.

A congress person's staff can gather and analyze info. independently from lobbyists.

Lobbying is simply "legal bribery," that provides hugely skewed info. and even writes legislation for a congressman.

So you would ban lobbyists advocating their windmill product?  Or a company advocating to construct a high speed rail line?  How about a manufacturer of streetcars?  All of these are corporations who lobby for various projects... some you may feel are worthy and good... others you may feel are evil and unworthy.  Banning lobbying from all incorporated business seems to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 17, 2011, 11:12:07 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 17, 2011, 10:57:15 AM

Quote from: FayeforCure on November 17, 2011, 10:51:39 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 17, 2011, 10:38:03 AM
Would you agree that "corporate lobbyists" also advocate for causes and legislation that you yourself support?  The reason I ask is where is the line drawn?  Is any incorporated business banned from hiring advocates on its behalf?

Sure, the green energy industry.........windmills etc. But they don't need lobbyists.

A congress person's staff can gather and analyze info. independently from lobbyists.

Lobbying is simply "legal bribery," that provides hugely skewed info. and even writes legislation for a congressman.

So you would ban lobbyists advocating their windmill product?  Or a company advocating to construct a high speed rail line?  How about a manufacturer of streetcars?  All of these are corporations who lobby for various projects... some you may feel are worthy and good... others you may feel are evil and unworthy.  Banning lobbying from all incorporated business seems to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I already aswered that above.

More here:
http://opengov.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Public-Financing-for-All-Federal-Offices--Ban-All-Corporate-Lobbying-/3773-4049

Quote from: FayeforCure on November 17, 2011, 11:16:11 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 17, 2011, 11:12:07 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 17, 2011, 10:57:15 AM

Quote from: FayeforCure on November 17, 2011, 10:51:39 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 17, 2011, 10:38:03 AM
Would you agree that "corporate lobbyists" also advocate for causes and legislation that you yourself support?  The reason I ask is where is the line drawn?  Is any incorporated business banned from hiring advocates on its behalf?

Sure, the green energy industry.........windmills etc. But they don't need lobbyists.

A congress person's staff can gather and analyze info. independently from lobbyists.

Lobbying is simply "legal bribery," that provides hugely skewed info. and even writes legislation for a congressman.

So you would ban lobbyists advocating their windmill product?  Or a company advocating to construct a high speed rail line?  How about a manufacturer of streetcars?  All of these are corporations who lobby for various projects... some you may feel are worthy and good... others you may feel are evil and unworthy.  Banning lobbying from all incorporated business seems to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I already aswered that above.

More here:
http://opengov.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Public-Financing-for-All-Federal-Offices--Ban-All-Corporate-Lobbying-/3773-4049

Well sort of...  If your answer is YES... I would ban all lobbying by any incorporated business... nod your head up and down...

Safe drinking water is only a concern to the 99%. The 1% isn't bothered by safe drinking water:

Report: Mica among top 100 recipients of natural gas funds



By Virginia Chamlee | 11.14.11 | 10:09 am


According to a new report published by Common Cause, a nonprofit government watchdog group, Rep. John Mica, R-Winter Park, is one of the top 100 recipients of campaign funds from the natural gas industry.

As the study reports, natural gas interests have spent “more than $747 million during a 10-year campaign … to avoid government regulation of hydraulic ‘fracking,’ a fast-growing and environmentally risky process” that aims to tap underground gas reserves.

The toxic chemicals commonly used during fracking procedures can enter an area’s underground drinking water supply or later be dumped as wastewater into waterways around the country.

“A faction of the natural gas industry has directed more than $20 million to the campaigns of current members of Congress,” reads the report, “and put $726 million into lobbying aimed at shielding itself from oversight. ”

Mica, number 89 on the list of top contributors, received a total of $67,600 from natural gas interests. The vast majority of that ($57,500) came from PACs, while $10,100 came from individuals working for the industry.

According to the report, many of the natural gas industry’s political donations favor lawmakers, like Mica, who supported the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which exempted fracking from regulations under the Safe Drinking Act. A resolution that aims to repeal that exemption (and thus require the contents of fracking fluids to be publicly disclosed) was recently introduced in the House, by Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Co. The resolution has 63 co-sponsors, Mica not among them.

“Players in this industry have pumped cash into Congress in the same way they pump toxic chemicals into underground rock formations to free trapped gas,” said Common Cause President Bob Edgar in a press release. “And as fracking for gas releases toxic chemicals into groundwater and streams, the industry’s political fracking for support is toxic to efforts for a cleaner environment and relief from our dependence on fossil fuels.”

The Environmental Protection Agency is slated to publish new findings on the potential dangers of fracking in 2012. The forthcoming report, which could shape public opinion about the practice, is likely an incentive for the industry to pump more money into campaigns before the New Year.

http://floridaindependent.com/56933/john-mica-natural-gas-fracking

How our Representatives represent the lobbyists and NOT the Public interest. John Mica has been bought and paid for by the following:

(http://transportationnation.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Mica-donation-chart.png)

http://transportationnation.org/2011/11/01/see-who-is-lobbying-and-donating-to-key-transpo-congressmen/