Lobbyists hired to align with Congress

[sabra]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070103/ap_on_go_co/lobbying

Lobbyists hired to align with Congress

WASHINGTON - New Democratic lawmakers aren't the only ones measuring for drapes and unsealing boxes. In a job swapping cycle unseen for some time, Democratic congressional aides and former members are leaping to lucrative lobbying posts, Democratic lobbyists are grabbing for influential jobs in Congress and advocacy groups are waging bidding wars for the best talent around.

Call it a six-year itch.

Washington's $2.3 billion lobbying industry is undergoing one of its periodic adjustments to shifts in government power — the first since the White House changed hands in 2001.

Accustomed to dealing with Republicans and at times discouraged by Republican lawmakers from hiring Democrats, lobbying firms and business groups are now filling their ranks with policy experts and lobbyists more closely aligned with the new leadership on Capitol Hill.

"Nobody on our side is telling them fire the Republicans, but they certainly understand they need to have a bipartisan team if they want to get anything done," said Steve Elmendorf, a top adviser to former Rep. Richard Gephardt (news, bio, voting record), D-Mo., who took up lobbying with Bryan Cave Strategies last year and opened his own shop after the election.

[seriousstan]

1. Same as it ever was

[Harper_is_Bush]

9. There needs to be lobbyists. They bring information on the issues, and Dem Lobbyists are

a hell of a lot better than Repuke ones.

So no, not the same.

[Le Taz Hot]

12. Why?

No, really. Why are they better? How are they better? Are they not employed by the same institutions that basically controlled Congress and wrote legislation while the Republicans were in power? Do you think all of a sudden these SAME institutions have turned into some kind of philanthropic, altruistic, social institutions?

Really, people. Just because they're Democrats doesn't mean they're AUTOMATICALLY going to hold higher ethical standards. Take a look at the new ethics rules proposals. It's FULL of loopholes. These people have absolutely NO incentive to change the status quo. If they were serious about K-Street influence over Congress, they could have come out of the gate with a proposal for public financing.

Just like the new ethics rules, this is window dressing, nothing more.

[Harper_is_Bush]

15. Why are they better than what?

What is it you're comparing them to?

[Virginia Dare]

2. Lobby shops have been stocking the shelves...

with Democrats for 6 months or better now. Nothing in Washington occurs randomly.

[brentspeak]

3. If the Democrats want to do the nation a favor, they could write up legislation to BAN lobbying

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. Fortunately the courts wiould strike that down as unconstitutional

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[brentspeak]

7. A) Why "fortunately"?

and B) Why are you conflating lobbying (ie. politicians being wined-and-dined and receiving financial contributions in return for political favors) with the phrase "petion(ing) the Government for a redress of grievances?"

[Freddie Stubbs]

8. It's fortunate because people should have a right to influence their representatives

That's why it's in the constitution.

Lobbying is a lot more than wining and dining and giving financial contributions. Lobbyists provide a lot useful (and less than useful) information which going into the decision making process. It is naive to believe that all lobbying is corrupt and working against the common good.

[LetsThink]

13. The problem is that lobbying gives the rich....

.....a greater voice. Because access is beyond the reach of anyone without significant resources. THAT's the reason lobbying is a problem and is a corruption of the Constitutional intention. Not that it's inherently bad; just tends to corrupt the original intent that government should be representative of ALL the people. Not just those with enough money to influence the process.

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. Yet those who are not rich have more voices and more votes

[Lone_Star_Dem]

16. And yet they are the most manipulated

Money can do a great deal of damage when it's in the wrong hands. Such as providing misleading information to further the agenda of those holding the purse strings.

[Harper_is_Bush]

10. My understanding is that Lobbyists serve a needed purpose. n/t

[warrens]

4. We need new, strict lobbying laws

Money is NOT free speech. Dems have to pass new rules restricting direct lobbying and making it harder for former congressional types to become lobbyists.

[Jack Rabbit]

6. Can we pronouce the K Street Project dead

. . . and bury it with a stake through its heart?

[salin]

11. I believe so...

the 'rush to hire' also indicates a fear of being shut out due to the previous playing ball with the K Street Project - heck the main house and senate conduits are gone. Too bad their isn't an election that can 'oust' Grover Norquist. Here's to hoping that some of the Abramoff investigations tarnish ole Grover and knock him out of his place of political influence.