Letters to the Editor

Lobbyist woes

October 9, 2009


To the editor:

Lobbyist — as defined by Webster’s New World Dictionary — is “a person who tries to get legislators to introduce or vote for measures favorable to a special interest that he represents.”

This being a fact of our system of governance — our Congress and state governing bodies — how can the true interests of the average citizen and taxpayer be truly and fairly represented?

Reports of the vast amounts of money spent by the special interest groups on our lawmakers in the form of contributions to PACs and sponsored golf outings and the fact that many of our lawmakers blatantly accept these gratuities, and vote accordingly, should outrage us all.

These same legislators continue to craft the laws and loopholes that allow the lobbyists access to our lawmakers. How, then, can we the people expect these same legislators to craft legislation that will be beneficial to all.


Richard Heckler 8 years, 7 months ago

Hey Norma Hubbard the problem exists at Lawrence city hall as well. Locally is where WE could make OUR lives a whole lot better IF people would go vote.

How about implementing OUR OWN term limits?

How? By replacing incumbents every 4 and 6 years.

Of course I have zero confidence in the new RINO party that brought us Reagan/Bush and Wreckanomics aka Reaganomics. Besides being dumb in economics they became the party of the narrow minded Falwell religious right of which Jerry Falwell boasted many times. The republican party as such became history. The party of war mongers and outsourcing USA jobs.

STOP sending the same faces back to Washington it is doing none of us any good. Incumbents receive so mauch money because corp america KNOWS they can control these officials. Ralph Nader says replace 90% at each election period. I say 95%. Next time vote Ralph Nader for president.

In the meantime here are other ideas:

The media has become a large part of the special interest takeover of our process as if they know what is best for all of us. Voters support this takeover by voting for those candidates who spend the most money and the question is why?

The media loves those big dollars the incumbents spend and they keep increasing their advertising rates.....what a racket!

Campaigns go too long,spend way too much money and do not necessarily provide the best available. It is up to us to stop the nonsense at the voting booths.

Campaigns start way too early AND spend way too much money. Did we elect officials to spend hours and hours each day campaigning? How do they have time to read legislation?

NOT voting locally or nationally is bad for government as we see everyday at all levels of government.

Richard Heckler 8 years, 7 months ago

How can we change government?

We need public financing of campaigns. Citizens cannot afford special interest money campaigns for it is the citizens that get left out. Let citizens vote on this issue. http://www.publicampaign.org/

Not voting sends the wrong message and changes nothing.

Lets’s demand a new system and vote in Fair Vote America : http://www.fairvote.org/irv/

Demand a change on the next ballot.

Not voting or constantly returning incumbents says WE approve of corruption. This applies to local elections as well. GO VOTE!

Richard Heckler 8 years, 7 months ago

Rep Moran has plenty of special interest friends: http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.php?cycle=2010&id=KSS2

A Brownback top contributor is Koch Industries a huge supporter of TABOR = very very very conservative and supporter of the Bush family of politicians = economic disaster for Kansas http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00005244&cycle=2008

It's time to end revolving doors and bring new faces to government.

SettingTheRecordStraight 8 years, 7 months ago

You mean lobbyists like the Sierra Club, the ACLU and Planned Parenthood? Or maybe the LTE writer means lobbyists like KU and K-State. Perhaps it's lobbyists like the National Endowment for the Arts or the National Institutes of Health that he's referring to.

KayCee 8 years, 7 months ago

Yes, all posters will support some group of lobbyists. So to say we shouldn't have them becomes 'hypocritical'. It becomes,"my lobbyist is OK, but yours should be banned".

devobrun 8 years, 7 months ago

"How, then, can we the people expect these same legislators to craft legislation that will be beneficial to all."

I'm pretty sure that the U.S. contains: Hip Hop artists, radical Muslim clerics, Vegans, tiny beauty contestants, and their parents. It contains Mexican immigrants who have no intention of staying in the U.S. past the time that they can make enough money to buy the ranch in Mexico for themselves. It contains grandmothers who smoke weed. Nuns.

I am none of these people. My guess is that you aren't either.

What makes you think that there is legislation of any kind that could benefit all these people?

Oh, you mean benefit you! Now I get it. Benefit you! Sorry, I don't want legislation that benefits you. I think I'll start an interest group whose purpose is to make sure that legislation never benefits you. There, now you can be specifically angry at my lobbyist. Idiot.

jafs 8 years, 7 months ago


I don't support any lobbyists who are able to give money to politicians.

If our system is ever going to even approximate what it should be - government "of, by and for the people" - we have to eliminate the influence of money on politicians.

jafs 8 years, 7 months ago

And neuhofel,

Given that promoting the "general welfare" was one of our founding principles, our government should be trying to enact legislation which does exactly that.

Perhaps if we removed money from the equation, they'd be more likely to try.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.