lobbying and the first amendment

[Don Quixote]

should organizations that receive money from the government be able to lobby for laws that would benefit them

would laws against such lobbying be legal under the first amendment

 

[Damocles]

should organizations that receive money from the government be able to lobby for laws that would benefit them

would laws against such lobbying be legal under the first amendment

They shouldn't. But as long as the laws continue to give them "rights" they will.

Even if the organization itself couldn't, the owners of the organization could create a lobbying group on their behalf that could not be so limited as they all have first Amendment rights separate from the Organization.

 

[uscitizen]

Lobbying should be fully legal as long as ALL have the same level of access.
Lobbying should not buy access. Nor should lobbyists be involved in writing bills to become law. That is a job for our elected officials.

 

[Jarod]

The First Amendement is more absolute than the second... at least in the wording.

 

[Minister of Truth]

The First Amendement is more absolute than the second... at least in the wording.

Not true (I know I'm arguing with a lawyer, here, but so be it), the 1st Amendment refers specifically to Congress, and it is only via the 14th Amendment that states may not establish religion or arbitrarily deny one group its freedom of speech (to include the press).

The 2nd Amendment does not specify what entity cannot infringe upon our right to bare arms. The only ambiguity is that the first clause gives a statement of purpose (why the right to bare arms is important).

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Not true (I know I'm arguing with a lawyer, here, but so be it), the 1st Amendment refers specifically to Congress, and it is only via the 14th Amendment that states may not establish religion or arbitrarily deny one group its freedom of speech (to include the press).

The 2nd Amendment does not specify what entity cannot infringe upon our right to bare arms. The only ambiguity is that the first clause gives a statement of purpose (why the right to bare arms is important).

Gee I had no idea everything was so simple.

Threedee, boy genius here.

Arms are only important in the way that they should be banned.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

IMHO, there should be a ban on lobbying.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Gee I had no idea everything was so simple.

Threedee, boy genius here.

Arms are only important in the way that they should be banned.

Funny, I didn't realize the 2nd Amendment talked about the manner in which arms may be banned.

But, yes, the first three amendments are extraordinarily simple and abundantly clear in exactly what they mean...

 

[Adam Weinberg]

Nor should lobbyists be involved in writing bills to become law. That is a job for our elected officials.

I agree with the spirit of what you're saying here. But there is a difference with a private interest writing a bill specifically to provide a positive benefit for themselves and a committee dedicated to a cause or issue--essentially a public interest group--that drafted what an ideal piece of legislation looked like for a provision for general purposes.

I'm sure citizen-lobbyists and professional lobbyists have succeeded in passing many laws where as part of that process they created resolutions and authored examples for what they wished to make law.

If you want to pass a bill with specific language making it legal to sell liquor on Sunday in a state, I'm sure some interests involved will be for it and some against it. Some perhaps will be for the general bill but want different measures.

But that's not quite the same thing as offering a written bill making it only legal to buy liquor at "Joe's liquor store".