The Instigator
stopthenonsense
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Iacov
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should lobbying be abolished?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
02days17hours28minutes10seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/29/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 week ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 88 times Debate No: 97453
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

stopthenonsense

Pro

As part of draining the swamp in Washington do you think lobbying should be abolished?
Iacov

Con

I thank my opponent for creating this debate and I look forward to their arguments.
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.
http://www.businessdictionary.com...
Abolished: to do away with; put an end to; annul; make void
http://www.dictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 1
stopthenonsense

Pro

(Example) Universities, government contractors and incestual ex-government employees should not need Washington lobbyists.
Iacov

Con

The suggestion the lobbying should be abolished is in my opinion the start of a slippery slope to a totalitarian government. As the definition states lobbing is a attempt to persuade in this instance a government official (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.
Debate Round No. 2
stopthenonsense

Pro

Communications between private industry will always want to influence government leaders. Conflicting issues arise when legislation only benefits government department programs, universities and their lobbyists. Gov't employees with no experience should not be allowed to pick winners and losers involving hundreds of millions of dollars in grants or to incestual ex-government-department employees with dismal results. (ie, Solyndra debacle and many others) Meeting grant milestones with real results will attract private industry and private investment.

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.
Iacov

Con

Government employees should be able to create any legislation that remains within our current laws they simple should be able to as you said "pick winners" because these officials were elected or appointed by those elected to their offices by the people thus making their actions in practice also the will of the people. It is then in the spirit of our competitive economy to try and grow the most successful business possible so of course owners will seek to influence their government and their government has a duty to serve these businesses and it's people. Now as often the case the company that offers the most money will normally win in these situations so rather than changing our system I believe it is the duty of the people to then elect new government officials who would support their own interests.
Debate Round No. 3
stopthenonsense

Pro

When government employees do not listen to private industries concerns or complaints telling them you need to hire a lobbyist to change an outdated Congressional Mandate that is a huge problem. Government employees work for us and should not make it a 'requirement' that we need to hire a lobbyist in order to change one paragraph in an outdated congressional mandate.

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
Iacov

Con

Constituents are not required to hire a professional lobbyist although it is very beneficial to do so. One of the many reasons for this is that a professional lobbyist will have many more contacts and will be much better at getting their goals done. 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.
Debate Round No. 4
stopthenonsense

Pro

With all due respect, Constituents dealing with the DOE for decades have been told for years they were 'must' hire a lobbyist. Not only are the lobbyists questionable, but their relationships with government employees at the DOE is also questionable. And if the DOE's own IG dept. claims they are being "stonewalled' by their own department leadership there is a huge problem between lobbyists and the DOE grant programs.

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.
Iacov

Con

I will first address your use of a quote from my previous argument and point out that that is not my words as it presents my words in a different order in which I stated them. Now if the DOE is requiring people to higher lobbyists then they are simply wrong. People are not required to higher a outside sources to communicate with their government.

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.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.