Idaho Needs Revolving Door Policy for Lobbyists

I think that’s way to simplistic an answer. If you say lobbyists are illegal, companies merely designate a employees with other titles but they do the same thing. If you say companies cannot send employees to talk to government officials about problems they are having, that’s a fundamental problem.

I think instituting a two year gap between government service and private sector lobbying is sufficient.

Can’t ban lobbying. We have a first amendment right to access our government. Trouble is the entities with the money obviously carry greater clout. How do we guard against favoritism that results?

I’m with you a hundred percent Joe. The problem is more insidious than you think. I also wrote a post on the subject. Click my name.

Funny how we both use the term “reeks” to describe the problem. But there is just no difference between big business and Idaho government with the current party in power.

The ban of 1-2 years would be a good reform to implement. However, I would go a step farther here. While we all appreciate that information that comes from lobbyists will be protected by free speech….what else is it that comes from lobbyists that speaks louder than the information they provide legislators???

It is money. Campaign finance reform would be beneficial here. This means public financing of campaigns. No political contributions allowed by anybody! Campaigns would take public dollars only.

The main drawback:
Court precedent-”money is speech”. The Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo ruled that limiting persons abilities to give contributions amounted to a first amendment violation.

However, we have to ask ourselves how long will we continue to allow our government be bought and paid for by the people with the deepest pockets?

2)

Banning the lobby is simplistic and probably will never happen. The lobby is kind of like a legal bribe (as demonstrated so eloquently in Boise). If you ban the lobby, the bribes will still happen.

An easier solution is to decentralize and limit the governments influence in business and our daily lives.

I don’t think the influence would lessen with the 2 year gap, but at least there’s a possibility. An outright ban would just send all the activity under the table instead of only half of it there.

I also like the idea of ending private funding for campaigns. Money as speech only means those with lots get to talk while those of us with none have no speech rights.

Incestuous and insidious, for sure, big government and big business. It’s not even a Republican only thing anymore, my precious David vs Goliath Democrats are becoming DINOs, just as they lament the RINOs on the other side.

KIDK reported an AP story that Governor Buth Otter made this identified problem worse.

http://www.kidk.com/news/local/15117361.html

Butch Otter’s appointed his outgoing chief of staff (going to become a lobbyist and being replaced by a lobbyist) to the committee which determines legislator pay, and failed to announce that appointment.

Why did Otter fail to announce this appointment? Is there any question that Otter did not want anyone to notice he put a fox in the hen house? When the media started checking into it, the lobbyist quit the committee. Suspicious?

Keith Allred said it was “unwise to have a lobbyist helping set legislators’ salaries.” Ya think? Apparently Otter isn’t thinking!

Bad Governor 2.0? Idaho deserves this series of bad governors when we re-elect career politicians who feel they are monarchy in line for the crown. Why shouldn’t they feel entitled to do stupid things like this?