On 1/15/2013 1:28 PM, John Mikes wrote:
in my (learned) English I equate "lobbying" with "bribing" - it is by no means a
Sure it is. I have a lawyer friend who works in Washington as a lobbyist for small
communication companies (telephone, TV cable,...). He reads proposed legislation and
evaluates how it will affect his clients and then goes and talks to regulators,
Congressmen or their staffers about what bad consequences for his clients might arise and
how it could be written better from their viewpoint. He doesn't give them money, just
information. Could those small companies afford to send someone to Washington to evaluate
every bit of proposed legislation or regulation. I think you have a false image of
lobbyists as some unified group. In general there are a lot of opposing lobbyist, so
although each one is no doubt biased, on the whole they can provide a fairly comprehensive
You can step up the law enforcement against lawmakers etc. being BRIBED easily.
It is illegal to bribe lawmakers and it is enforced. The problem is that they need money
for election compaigns and contributing to those campaigns buys access at least and laws
at worst. On the other hand some very big expenditures in the last campaign went to the
losing side - so it's not so clear what you can buy and what you can't.
"If you can't eat their food, drink their whiskey, fuck their women, and vote against
them, you have no business being in politics."
--- Jesse "Big Daddy" Unruh, on lobbyists
Unless, of course, if the enforcers get 'lobbied'<G>.
I always wonder, if someone has b$3-4 assets and m$5-10 in yearly income, (that's a
modest incredible ~0.2% return) why would it be so important to fight for more? Power??
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at