Should lobbying be abolished?
Debate Rounds (5)
I will be arguing that the act of lobbying should not be abolished.
Now as my opponent failed to provide any definitions I will do so.
Lobbying: The act of attempting to influence business and government leaders to create legislation or conduct an activity that will help a particular organization.
Abolished: to do away with; put an end to; annul; make void
http://www.businessdictionary.com...). So is any concerned citizen who contacts their representative now need to be jailed because they were trying to persuade a government official to benefit themselves. If lobbying were to be abolished a very clear path is opened to a society where the public would have no way of communicating with it's government. If any person or entity feels it needs to take measures to ensure that their interests are heard in it's ruling government it should be allowed to do so.
Lobbying needs to be abolished and made illegal in the US under the current system. Too many people are living off the government with very dismal results. The existing lobbying system needs to be restructured to support private industries creating new private company jobs and markets, instead of benefiting themselves.
Are government employees supposed to listen to private industry and do their job? Lobbyists in this situation wanted particular situation wanted $1, 250,000 up front, 30% equity in private companies and $250,000 per month while grant funding was in place to change a paragraph. That is more expensive money than any 'vulture' capital.
When existing government employees have listened to private industries concerns for decades and tell you the only way to change anything is to hire a lobbyist they are not doing their job and need to be fired. When 'frustrated grant recipients' complain to government employees about the same problem they loose their grant funding. If something like this this took place in private industry employees would be fired for not doing their job.
Even the departments inspector general's office believes the concerns are totally legitimate and agree to ask the government employee the same questions and claim "they were stonewalled when asking legitimate questions" that does not pass the smell tes
http://www.dakotapr.com... A hazard of hiring a professional lobbyist obviously has my opponent pointed out is that they are very expensive but understandingly so as these lobbyist are providing a high value service. However the validity of these professional lobbyist is not what is up for debate. Any one who seeks to influence the government regardless if they are being paid has become a lobbyist, this debate is proposing the lobbying should be abolished, if this were to happen we would live in a society in which citizens could not communicate with their government in any form.
Appreciate you supporting lobbyists (you might be one) but lobbying should be abolished immediately due to their undue influence of government employees providing federal grants going to universities and the incestuous ex-government employees relationships in private industry receiving those grants.
"However the validity of these professional lobbyist is not what is up for debate lobbyist are providing a high value service." Really? Lobbyists should not be allowed to lobby to add one sentences to one paragraph in an 'existing' out-dated Congressional Mandate. There is no value there.
When DOE government employees cannot change one simple paragraph in an admittedly outdated mandate that they have been made aware of by government grant recipients as well as private industry for a decade a lobbyist should not be needed and the government employee needs to be fired. In private industry that government employee would have been terminated. Instead the DOE leadership has had their jobs for the last decade creating university research grant jobs but nothing for the private sector.
I thank you for the compliment but I would not say I support professional lobbyists (I'm a Highschool student but I have communicated with my state representative so by definition this does make me a lobbyist) rather I support the act of lobbying. Let me say once again gas we defined in round one lobbying is the act of attempting to influence the government to create legislation. It seems to me the reason you feel lobbying should be abolished is because you are unhappy with how lobbying has influenced the government thus far, so my suggestion to you would simply be that if you don't like current direction the government is heading it is your civic duty to make your voice heard and attempt to influence the government in your direction in other words you must do some lobbying.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.