Former Trump Officials Are Supposed to Avoid Lobbying. Except 33 Haven’t

"we have to pass it to find out what's in it".

Sound familiar?

 

How is it a gravy train?

I would love to hear this.

 

You may not know this but congress doesn't actually write the laws, they contract them out to usually one of two places. These are bi-partisan companies filled with lawyers and constitutional experts who have the very boring obligation of making sure anything in the law they are writing doesn't conflict with other laws, no way a congressperson is going to know all that.

Congress submits a list of what they want in the law and it's written to include those items without contradicting other things on the books already, this is where all the legal jargon comes from when you read an actual law.

These companies don't usually intend to put loopholes in a law but as they weave the new law around certain other laws currently on the books sometimes they happen.

It's not always intentional is my point.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/13/ryan-zinke-lobbying-firm-1168926

"Zinke, meanwhile, plans to work on energy and defense matters. He’ll split his time among Montana, California and Washington.

The former Interior secretary is limited in his ability to lobby the administration by Trump’s ethics pledge and doesn’t plan to do so, according to Osborne. But he’s allowed to lobby Congress, in which he represented Montana for one term before resigning to join Trump's Cabinet."

The pledge wasn't an outright prohibition.

 

I don't think that's true at all...there are all sorts of lobbyist for a wide range of issues...from pharma, healthcare insurance, auto insurance, banking, but also farmers, small businesses, teachers, nurses, etc....groups of people are certainly able to pool together that share a common goal and hire someone to represent them to Congress.

 

Big difference - Trump specifically campaigned on the promise to "drain the swamp". He SHOULD have known (or informed himself) of what that meant.

But we all know it was a lie. A campaign slogan that he never intended to do anything about. What he really meant was that he would turbocharge the "swamp" with his own people. That he would be the slimiest swamp creature of them all.

The only reason he campaigned on "drain the swamp" was because it was a catchy vote-getter.

 

I honestly did not know that. Though I didn't really know how it worked, but that makes sense. Not every congressperson is a lawyer so they wouldn't be expected to deal with that kind of minutia.

Thanks

 

Because lobbyist bribe politicians with money and favors. Hell, that money and those favors are the very reason many politicians get into the profession to begin with. And I'm not singling out any particular party, they are all guilty.

 

Pretty amusing statement from someone who had no problem using the 14th amendment to fabricate a gay marriage right that didn't exist.

 

I think he's referring to the second career many politicians take after they leave office as lobbyists.

 

Politicians are helped while in office as well, but yeah the second career in the private sector is when the real money starts to flow.

 

How is their non-compliance his fault. Oh that's right DTS.

 

I did? Wow, I’ve been busy all the way up here in canada.

 

I was unaware of the process as to how the technicalities of the law are written. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt now that I understand and it’s out there to see if it’s fixed

 

You've been quite busy on this board on this topic as well. You do realize you have a rich history on this board do you not? You do realize how easy it is to look up your own words and prove you wrong again right?

I'm amazed how many times I have to own you with your own words and you still have these fake amnesia spells as if anyone will buy them.


As someone who supports Gay marriage I wonder if they did this knowing they couldn't push for gay marriage rights at the time, so in not allowing a specifically defined definition of Marriage, it gave them the out to push for change when public opinion swayed.

I like the outcome (the legal approval of gay marriage and all the benefits that come with being married to someone)

Where is your protest for the spirit of the law Cubed?

Your wrong. The Hoise report that accompa ied DOMA specifically speaks to legislating the morality of homosexuality

Where is your protest for the "spirit of the law" Cubed?

I don't know the individuals she has short listed other then by name, but I believe I would agree with the direction they would take the country moreso then I would the people that the RNC...I mean Trump....would pick. Overturn Citizens United, avoid another fight on Roe V Wade, Gay Marriage etc..

No protest there.

And there are dozens more. But go ahead, quote yourself one time where you claim to disagree with the way gay marriage became legal in the states. I would love to see it.

If you were being honest about it you didn't give a damn about the "spirit of the law" when it was violated for your personal preferences.

Good old Cubed.

 

I don't believe Gay marriage should be outlawed. I disagreed with the spirit AND the letter of the law in those cases. Of course personal preference will come into play when it comes to an individuals view on certain laws. But if your ok with the letter of the law even though it violates the spirit of the law, then your basically ok with using legal loopholes to circumvent it.

And the Supreme Court agreed.

 

Thank you for admitting your 2 faced approach to the law. Next time don't play the innocent card or pretend you care about the spirit of the law when its clear you could care less if it goes against your personal beliefs.

Next time spare us your high and mighty Barbara Streisand claims of caring about the spirit of the law mmmkay? Unfortunate.

5-4 and yes they chose to fabricate new law instead of following the Constitution just as they did with eminent domain.

The Constitution has in place the amendment process for a reason. They bypassed that in favor of personal opinion going against the very reason they are there in the first place.

 

Point 1 - if I don’t agree with either the spirit or the letter of the law, how on earth is that two faced? That makes zero sense.

If I agree with the spirit of a law, but believe the letter of the law is being used to circumvent that, then I will argue against. How is this not clear to you?

Point 2 - funny how you seem to think you know better then the top legal bench in the entire USA.

 

Try to keep up with your own words. You pretended in this thread to care about the spirit of the law and it took me just a few minutes to prove you could care less about the spirit of the law when one of your personal beliefs was on the line.

It was beyond easy exposing your 2 faced approach to the law.

You don't have to be a top legal bench to read the 14th amendment. Its why 4 agreed with me.

But please go ahead and show us where sex marriage or homosexuality is mentioned in the 14th amendment anywhere. Go ahead Cubed, embarrass yourself some more.

 

Having people sign a pledge is one thing. Enforcing that pledge is a completely different issue. While I agree it was a great idea to have them sign the pledge, many "pledges" and/or Non-compete clauses are often unenforceable in courts.

Not really sure why people would feel that Trump needs to personally take action against these "pledge-breakers". As far as we know, the DOJ might already be investigation and/or even pursuing action.

 

Point 1 - yes, I did not agree with the letter of the law. In this thread, which has a specific Law that’s being discussed. Sounds like your trying to be pedantic in that I didn’t expressly say that I meant the current law under discussion, even though I created the OP about a specific law, and that’s what we are discussing.

Point 2 - it doesn’t need to say “gay marriage to apply” if you had actually read the decision you’d understand that it was passed because the law against violated the Equal Protection Clause

They got to this because of the following 4 reasons

Don’t like the decision, take it up with the SC.

 

That's the thing: You and I cannot. And these corporate institutions promote ideas/policies that might actually go against the general public's interests. Lobbyists is basically enabling some people to address grievances towards the government, but not all or most. Only a select few. That's not what the Framers intended for government. Or de-facto buyouts in the form of congressional campaign funds.

Lobbying is a huge part of American corruption, and until we recognize that then we have no right to complain about American corruption. We fester it, by pretending that "money is speech". It's not. It's bribery.

 

that’s not true, I am part of a number of organizations that have lobbyist. Moreover as an individual you are always free to contact legislators and lobby for whatever. It likely however would be easier and better to find a group of people with a similar clause

 

And how are they helped while in office?

I think you are just repeating talking points you've been given without actually knowing the facts.

 

Were you just as critical in 2010 when the same thing happened?

“Lobbyist can offer, in other words, an implicit preemptive payoff to powerful government officials. It happens not only on the Hill but in the boastfully anti-lobbyist, anti-revolving-door Obama White House. Scores of administration officials had by 2010 left the administration for K Street jobs without anyone so much as pointing out that they were defying a central tenet of the Obama political enterprise.” … “There's a payoff," Hess [Stephen Hess Brookings Institution] concluded using the word “payoff” with no apparent wryness.” Mark Leibovich, This Town, Penguin Books, 2013, pp. 163,164.”