I heard he gets to keep his blackberry for personal stuff and he'll get another new fancy unhackable device for official business.

Blackberry is not that secure, at least not to the Presidential level.

For offical business word is he will have a brick of a device called a Sectera Edge

An envoy or ambassador is a different story - government to government, supposedly equals (though not necessarily so in reality).

I'd feel a lot better about lobbying if it didn't include gifts, but even so, the inherent unfairness of being able to afford a "man in Washington" to look after one's interests grates on me. I know that groups organize in order to achieve this level of input, but I can't wholly support a system that doesn't at least pretend to represent each citizen equally, no matter their standing.

Yeah, I know, we can't each go whisper in our representative's ear, but perhaps if no one were whispering in their ears, they'd have to actually seek out the facts instead of having a very specific version of it presented on a silver platter.

From Federalist 56.....James Madison says, "It seems to give the fullest assurance, that a representative for every thirty thousand inhabitants will render the (House of Representatives) both a safe and competent guardian of the interests which will be confided to it."

He also said, in relation to the size of the House, the "Numerous bodies (meaning the number of representatives) are less subject to venality and corruption."

While a little off the subject, I don't think it is necessarily lobbying that is the problem....it is the relatively small number of representatives (each now represents approx. 700,000 citizens) that are being lobbied.

If I recall my history, prior to 1929 the number of congressional disctricts increased after every census. In 1929, the number of districts was fixed by law at 435.

So you would have the government essentially separated from the people? They get to provide input every 2, 4, 6 years at election time but otherwise we only get to try to influence them when they deign to come seeking our input? We pretty intentionally rejected such forms of government.

Why is government lobbying of other governments different? Heck, in that realm gift giving is viewed as a necessary part of the process (Hey, country X, if you promise to not pursue your own nuclear program/wage war against a neighbor/support our UN resolution we'll build you four nuclear power plants/lower trade barriers/name a tree after you). I'd think it would be even more repugnant.

You didn't say some methods of lobbying are bad, but rather that the very idea of lobbying at all is so repugnant that one day we'll be embarrassed that it ever existed (even though it has always existed in every form of government throughout all time).

Heck, even your own elected representatives are essentially lobbyists. We don't send a member of congress to Washington so that s/he can ignore the local interests back home and only act out of the best interests of the country as a whole, always acting on the average of the national public opinion). No, we expect them to use their influence and understanding of the processes in Washington to hopefully try and make sure local interests are disproportionately represented.

Nowhere in our system of government is there any existence of the idea that when it comes to governing the ideal is that it will at all times exist on a simple "all people's interests are equal" method. Such systems tend not to work in groups larger than small villages where direct democracy can be used in all government decisions and even then lobbying exists.


But anyway, that is all beside the point I was initially making in that the lobbyist rule is stupid. Since it defines a lobbyist in the most meaningless way as being someone who was paid and registered as one and then pretending that no similar conflict of interest exists for the person that hired the lobbyist. In fact, if there is an inherent conflict of interest it is more strongly attached to the community organizer who hires a lobbyist to work their interests than on the lobbyist himself. The latter is just a hired gun and may not even agree with the positions they represent. Such a person should be perfectly fine for inclusion in the adminstration since it could be assumed that once in place he'd actively work in the interests of the new boss.

To stop lobbying we could:

1) Actually follow the founders intention and only spend money on things that document says we should.

or, even better

2) Actually follow the founders intention and have one representative for every 30,000 citizens.....with something like 10,000 congresspersons voting on spending bills no lobbyist could possibly influence enough to really sway a vote.

Once we decided to view the Constitution as something "quaint" we opened the door for lobbyist and closed it for liberty:(

Edit to add: Great minds think alike; Scaegles, you beat me to it.

I agree with sleepyjeff.

Alert the media!

It's a good thing too. If they hadn't done that, we'd have over 1,000 in the House of Representatives now! Can you imagine the damage over twice as many congresscritters could do?!?!