Lobbies: Conflict of interest?

[crobbins26]

Lobbies in America represent groups, whether they be special interest groups, or corporations.  These lobbies get to meet with our Representatives, in offices that the citizens these Representatives are supposed to be working for, have paid for.  Isn't the term representative form of government self explanatory?  The instant that our elected representatives meet with anyone other than one who is represented by them... A conflict of interest exists.  Their presumed intent at that moment is not to represent the people, is it?  There need to be strict rules, with the force of law, regarding who is allowed to discuss U. S. intended legislation, upcoming legisllation and non citizens being represented in order to present that groups point of view.

For instance, if a lobby or group representing a corporation, or other business entity, has donated campaign funds to a candidate, at no point in time, during their term, should they be allowed to vote upon any legislation that the group, entity or corporation presents for consideration.  The obvious problem there is, once again, conflict of interest.  In effect, the appearance of votes being for sale would be effectively removed.

Any thoughts on this topic?  Suggestions on how to better separate the influence peddling/bribery which runs rampant upon capitol hill?

I do not present any reference due to this being purely my opinion on the subject.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, crobbins26 said:

1) The instant that our elected representatives meet with anyone other than one who is represented by them... A conflict of interest exists. 

2) Any thoughts on this topic?  Suggestions on how to better separate the influence peddling/bribery which runs rampant upon capitol hill?

I do not present any reference due to this being purely my opinion on the subject.

1) Not "our" representatives but the Americans'.  The conflict only arises when money changes hands, IMO, admittedly tht happens often.
2) There were, in the 90s I think, a lot of people who spoke out against lobbying.  Now they ALL take lobbying money.  

In Canada, we had Chretien and Harper who both introduced laws to limit donations.  Hopefully our political culture will continue to assert itself independently.

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/how-ottawa-banned-corporate-donations-to-parties/

[Argus]

On 10/10/2020 at 6:19 AM, crobbins26 said:

Any thoughts on this topic?  Suggestions on how to better separate the influence peddling/bribery which runs rampant upon capitol hill?

I do not present any reference due to this being purely my opinion on the subject.

You can't ban them from voting on something people have paid them to vote for when much of the campaign donations are anonymous anyway. The way to limit the corruption is by limiting their spending and making them account for every dollar spent right down to whoever donated it - and that doesn't mean the PAC or legal firm or lobbyist acting for someone unknown. If the NRA donates a million dollars it has to account for the origin of every buck it donated and have written permission from that individual.

Only individuals should be allowed to donate and the amount should be strictly limited. But neither that, nor any of the rest would be allowed given the current supreme court's interpretation of the first amendment as including money. You pretty much need a constitutional amendment, which 90% of Americans would support but which would never be passed by the politicians.

Edited October 11, 2020 by Argus