Originally Posted by Rick Lee (Post 3649542)

Are there any other rights in the first 10 amendments you'd like to abolish? Right to counsel? Trial by jury?

BTW, lobbyists cannot give anymore money to pols than individuals can. At present I think the federal limit is around $2300 per fed. candidate, but I can't remember what the limit is for total fed. candidates. However, lobbyists, because they tend to be well connected in the business communities, can help get their friends to give and thereby become bundlers. And they can also influence PAC giving. But it's not like they can hand brown bags full of cash under the table while at dinner. Sure, it probably happens once in a while, but it is very illegal. My company has season tickets for the Washington Nationals and we give all tix to clients. Most of my clients who are federal employees decline them, because they cost more than $20. Once in a while, a fed. employee candidate will tell me to give them to his or her spouse, who sometimes it turns out is also a client at their non-gov't. job. There are pretty tight restrictions since about 1995 on lobbying gifts. I think it's pretty silly that I can't take a longtime client to lunch because he works on the Hill. I'm not trying to influence legislation, I just want to grab lunch with someone who's sent us a lot of business and over the years has become a friend.

Originally Posted by WI wide body (Post 3649674)

Now there's a clever comparison: lobbyists with right to counsel and trila by jury!

What you seem unable to understand is that lobbying may have started out all pure and innocent but it has been bastardized almost beyond recognition.

Pretending that it's some sort of "right" reserved for the good, hard working citizens of our nations is beyone absurd. I'ts much closer to immoral...but deep down you probably know that, since you don't appear to be astupid person.;)

Originally Posted by Rearden (Post 3649432)

An example: Ever wonder why the IRS doesn't have an online tax filing system like Intuit or HR Block? Why do we need to file our taxes online through a middleman, paying them a fee? Because the tax preparation lobby "convinced" the government to do so. We could easily out-bribe that lobby!

Originally Posted by mattdavis11 (Post 3649723)

Maybe it is cheaper for the gov't to do so. You have a choice whether to file electronically or file by paper. What's your main complaint?

Originally Posted by WI wide body (Post 3649657)

If you honestly believe everything that you just wrote it probably indicates one of two things. You are either the most naive person in the building or you truly were in the correct business per your mind set.

(methinks that your reply to #5 speaks volumes)

Originally Posted by Rearden (Post 3649747)

My main complaint? Having to use a third party (and paying ~$50) to prepare my taxes online. I just read that the IRS will have their own tax prep software online this tax season, but they are limiting its use to those with incomes of $54,000 or less.

Doesn't do me any good, but it's progress.

Originally Posted by Rick Lee (Post 3649695)

And public defenders getting serial rapists off on techicalities is less bastardized that what's happened to your right to petition the gov't. for a redress of grievances? Both are matters of law, not popular opinion. If you hate all lobbyists so much, be sure to vote for someone who shares your view. Lobbying is a right. You can do it or you can hire someone to do it for you. If the gov't. ever decides to come after your industry or employer, you'd change your tune pretty quickly about lobbyists.

Again, the bigger problem is the power of the fed. gov't. to do stuff we need lobbyists to protect us from. Sort of like the same company making both radar guns and radar detectors. Who are they working for? You or the cops?

Originally Posted by mattdavis11 (Post 3649750)

# 5 should, and if you read what I had previously stated, you would know that.

I encourage you to run for office. You clearly have the desire to make things right. What's holding you back?

Originally Posted by WI wide body (Post 3649824)

If you honesly believe that the paid lobbyists in Washington are there to "protect" the average citizen then I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I will offer to you at terrific deal!;)

BTW, if you also really believe what you say about "power of the fed government" then Ron Paul is your guy next election!

Originally Posted by WI wide body (Post 3649828)

Let us do a quick recap:

I asked you what you thought of Jack Abramoff.
You indicated that you had no interest.
I replied that your lack of a position/reply spoke volumes.

Now what in the world do you mean by "# 5 should, and if you read what I had previously stated, you would know that."

Did you forget a couple of words in that or what?

Originally Posted by mattdavis11 (Post 3648600)

I didn't and still don't have much interest in DC politics, ....

Originally Posted by mattdavis11 (Post 3649904)

I didn't forget to to mention anything at all. #5 pertains to the order in which you asked your question, you numbered it 5. Thus my reply #5 should...
From my first post in this thread.

Any clearer now?

I guess I need to ask you one question. Why should I care about what Jack has on his plate?

Originally Posted by Rick Lee (Post 3649843)

Man, you need a reading comprehension refresher course. I never said that. I said lobbying is a right. Just because you don't do it or see the need for it does not mean it's ok to ignore the part of the First Amendment you don't like. Furthermore, the Bill of Rights was not even intended to be a list of things to protect the avg. citizen, but rather a limit on what the gov't. can do to any citizen.

And I like Ron Paul a lot. Too bad he's such a lonely voice in Congress and one of the few who actually respects the Constitution.

Originally Posted by Rick Lee (Post 3649962)

Again, lobbyists work for whomever hires them. They aren't some altruistic force out there to help us all. And the fed. gov't. doesn't come after everyone, so lobbyists aren't for everyone.

On Abramoff, I personally think his biggest crime (though he wasn't charged for it) was working both sides of the issue for two clients whose interests were opposite one another. Talk about a conflict of interest. Whichever side appeared to be winning on the issue just made it easier for him to get more out of the other side. That'd be like working for a tobacco company against the huge federal settlement and then also working for the laweyers who brought the suit.