|
Edwynn -> RE: What is most important? (6/16/2011 1:46:42 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf
Sound fiscal policy (this is one that has many issues in it like balanced budget, tax reform, and stabilization of the economy)
Reduction in our role as a military power, so that defense spending can be cut.
Campaign reform
I can only point out that unless and until item #3 is dealt with, the other two items or any others in this or other threads on the subject cannot be considered in any meaningful way.
In any event the whole question of congressional (and presidential) influence goes a good bit beyond the simple FEC listed contributors to individual campaigns. The lobbying and closely related DC consulting and public relations firms constitute a very healthy and ever growing industry, and the revolving door between high ranking regulatory positions and law/lobbying firms is both much less visible and much more harmul than the congress members' participation in that process.
In the majority of these instances it's not a matter of a regulator being awarded a job with the lobbying firm or interested corporation, it's actually much worse; the regulators are former corporate lawyers or lobbyists for that industry.
That is how the FTC kept approving mergers that were clearly against their original mandate and contrary to every established practice concerning industrial organization and market regulation, especially in allowing the 1st and 2nd largest oil companies to merge, followed closely by the merger of #3 and #4. Likewise the FTC, the FED, OCC, etc. with the banks, even aside from the Banking Modernization Act in 2000 which removed the prohibition of common ownership of commercial banks, investment banks and insurance companies.
So now we have the big four oil companies and the big four banks.
All the above due too incessant and unrelenting pressure from the interested parties, effected both by campaign contributions and by lobbying.
Hence the vicious cycle: the larger and fewer the corporations in an industry, the greater the effect as from both the amount and concentration of funds available to influence the law making process.
"Big Pharma" and agro-chem have for years also spent heavily on congressional influence and are adept players at the revolving door game with the relevant regulatory agencies. Micheal Taylor (Monsanto) is the poster boy for that sector, but only the most audacious and successful of the many who industry places in the FDA, USDA, etc.
http://electionlawblog.org/archives/018727.html
"As long as lobbying and campaign donations remain both substitutes and complements, we should not study one without studying the other. Both are different means for achieving a similar set of political ends, ... "
"Each time the courts or legislatures try to regulate a particular type of political institution, political entrepreneurs find new outlets to channel their energies. Party donors become supporters of 527s, then 501c4s and c6s. Lobbyists deregister and become consultants. They are shapeshifters. We see it in campaign finance, and we see it in lobbying."
|
|
|
|
