Do you think that Lobby Groups have to much power?? Just from what I have seen since I have been here, plus what was happening back home, they seems to run governments to some extent, with MP's etc taking back handers just to push the agenda forward.
When something like this is discovered, why are they not charged with something?? like trying to bribe an Official of the Government etc.
Lobbyists are the basis of our democracies. You surely don’t believe that politicians have the intelligence to run the country on their own.
wink
Yes, I get the impression that rather than be answerable to thier constituents (is that the right word in this country), they seem to be primarily responsible to their contributors. I seem to remember reading that for each congressman or senator there are 4 lobbyists following them around badgering them.
Those who have power in corporations, industries, and interest groups have greater power than they would do as a normal votor. Those with many shares I would imagine also enjoy some influence.
Kind of detracts from the whole idea of being democratic.
Do you think that Lobby Groups have to much power?? Just from what I have seen since I have been here, plus what was happening back home, they seems to run governments to some extent, with MP's etc taking back handers just to push the agenda forward.
When something like this is discovered, why are they not charged with something?? like trying to bribe an Official of the Government etc.
They are.
In Britain, the notion of individual MPs taking money from lobby groups is mostly myth. All gifts and donations, whether they are in cash or in kink (i.e. free trips) have to be declared in the 'Register of Members' Interests'. Failure to do so is a serious matter, at the very least it will result in a disciplinary sanction by Parliament (typically a suspension) and at worst it will lead to criminal procedings.
As a result lobby groups have less influence on individual MPs than is commonly believed.
This is distinct from lobbying political parties. Again such donations must be registered and disclosed though, and the nature of the British media is that sometimes the donation is more trouble than it is worth - Bernie Eccelstons million pound donation to Labour for example.
In any event, the money may be of limited use. There are strict campaign finance laws in Britain. Individuals and parties are restricted in what they can raise, from where they can raise it and on what it may be spent.
At the 2001 election I was Agent for a campaign, we were limited to spending around $12,000 for the whole campaign (if act we spent less than half that as it was a safe seat and such spending was unecessary).
You will recall that in Britain there is no broadcast advertising by political parties (not allowed) - this is a major expense this side of the Atlantic.
After the election, every penny in and out and every gift in kind (office space, computers etc) has to be accounted for and records submitted for publication. Any member of the public (or opposing candidate) can challenge the accounts - and sometimes they do.
On this side of the Atlantic there are similar rules and the FEC monitors campaign fundraising and expenditure. However campaign donations are covered by the Fisrt Amendment, so British style restrictions would probably be unconstitutuional. Also there normally is no limit on expenditure (Federal match funding in Presidential elections is an exception).
Also the lobby industry seem to have greater latitude in giving donations or in kind suppoert to politicians - including attacking opponents on their behalf. Some of what goes on here would probably be bribery and corruption in england and certainly things like the Swift Boat Liars for Bush campaign would breach both electoral law and be defamatory.
In washington the influence of K-street and its Republican bias is now becoming overwhelming; just look at the Tom Delay case for examples. IMHO this is not only undemocratic but politically counterproductive; people will ultimately resent having their opinions fed to them and their supposed representatives representing only those with the money to buy them.
However lobbying is still an important part of the political process. The term comes from the right of people in Britain to enter the Lobby of the House of Commons and demand to see their MP and to hold them directly and personally accountable. These days there are other means (emails for example) and security concerns mean getting into Parliament is more difficult. Also MPs are spread in other buildings such as Portcullis House and so not easily available - not to mention that they hate having to come down to the lobby and argue with some random constituent. It is practically impossible to compell them to the lobby, but I've found that it you write to them,in advance, most will agree to meet with you for a few minutes - especially if you have a group.
Do you think that Lobby Groups have to much power??
Yes and in particular one of them...