The new president also moved to fulfill his campaign pledge to end the so-called revolving door, the longstanding Washington practice whereby White House officials depart for the private sector and cash in on their connections by lobbying former colleagues.
In what ethics-in-government advocates described as a particularly far-reaching move, Mr. Obama barred officials of his administration from lobbying their former colleagues "for as long as I am president." He barred former lobbyists from working for agencies they had lobbied within the past two years and required them to recuse themselves from issues they had handled during that time.
The Republican National Committee criticized the Obama administration for violating this new standard in some of its appointments. Mr. Obama's nominee for deputy secretary of defense, William Lynn, has been a lobbyist for the defense contractor Raytheon, and his nominee for deputy secretary of health and human services, William V. Corr, lobbied for stricter tobacco regulations as an official with the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
A senior White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, conceded the two nominees did not adhere to the new rules. But he said that Mr. Lynn had the support of Republicans and Democrats, and would receive a waiver under the policy, and that Mr. Corr did not need a waiver because he had agreed to recuse himself from tobacco issues.
"When you set very tough rules, you need to have a mechanism for the occasional exception," this official said, adding, "We wanted to be really tough, but at the same time we didn't want to hamstring the new administration or turn the town upside down."
Is he also going to end torture, except where it might yield useful information?
In practice, I suspect that this rule will turn out to be very, very difficult to stick to. I am second to none in my hatred of lobbying, but the fact is, lobbyists are usually the folks who a) know their subject matter really, really well and b) want to work for government salaries.
Nor is it any good to simply claim, as Obama is trying, that your appointees will recuse themselves from the issues they lobbied on. If you know what your boss wants, it's wise to give it to him, even if he never asks for it. One assumes that no matter how hard he strives to be fair, Mr. Corr will admire the pluck and good sense of any subordinate who agrees with him on all matter tobacco.
I can't say that I'm particularly perturbed by the prospect of Mr. Corr in office (though to be sure, I neither smoke, nor sell tobacco). It's just time to face up to the fact that we didn't actually enter magical unicorn fairyland on November 5th. And I'm pretty sure that most of the other sweeping campaign promises he made will also turn out to be more complicated than he thought.
For all that, I still prefer him to Mr. McCain; being a libertarian means accepting that your vote is always the choice between the lesser of two evils. That he will not fulfill most of his campaign promises does not mean that he still can't do a good job. But I confess to a deep curiosity about how closely the watchdogs who bashed Bush on principle will actually hold Obama to account for his promises.
This seems to violate the spirit of the first amendment; if I care enough about an issue to petition the government about it, I'm suddenly rendered ineligible for office in the administration? Does he mean to fill all of the positions with people that don't care enough about what they're working on to have ventured opinions about it in that last two years?
Are you second to none in your hatred of lobbying?
Then grow up.
The constitutional gives a right to lobby, to petition to address grievances.
Lobbyists represent a wide variety of interests, from those you like, to those you dis-like... this is true, of you, because it is true of almost everyone. The scope of lobbying is wide.
The act of lobbying is responsible for many fine laws, and many very bad laws. The same could be said of the act of law-making.
I think that when people say they are tired of lobbying, they mean they are tired of the ability of lobbyists to influence and affect laws and budgets without accountability. They are tired of the fecklessness of Washington in its embrace of many bad causes and idiotic ideas. They are tired of the elitism, insider-trading, and influence peddling of the Capitol.
And I would agree. But the lobbyists are not this phenomenon, they are an inevitable reflection of this culture. Look not to your lobbyists for the evil of these days. They are often good people, and when evil, are no more than maggots on an already rotting corpse.
if I care enough about an issue to petition the government about it, I'm suddenly rendered ineligible for office in the administration?
That is not the usual definition of "lobbyist," any more than "one who cares enough about an issue to sue" is the usual defintion of "lawyer."
being a libertarian...
That will never stop being funny. Ever.
"the watchdogs who bashed Bush on principle"
Who were they, exactly? Or were you happy with Bush and his regime of torture, corruption and cronyism? More precision, less vacuous waffle, please.
I mostly agree, but with one minor nitpick: do lobbyists actually work for government wage? Possibly some of the more altruistic ones do, but aren't we really talking about lobbyists for firms such as tobacco, oil, health care, etc?
Otherwise, good post.
"But I confess to a deep curiosity about how closely the watchdogs who bashed Bush on principle will actually hold Obama to account for his promises."
It's pretty safe to say that the answer to this will vary within a range from "not much" to "not at all".
Rob Lyman, may I call your attention to:
lob⋅by⋅ist
/ˈlɒbiɪst/
[lob-ee-ist]
–noun
a person who tries to influence legislation on behalf of a special interest; a member of a lobby.
Since everyone is special and has an interest, that reduces to pretty much everyone that tries to influence legislation; what do you take to be the usual meaning, if not that? Maybe I'm just biased by local law, but 'round here you /are/ a lobbyist, fully and legally, if you do any lobbying (that is, "petitioning") whatsoever for any reason, but only /register/ as such after your expenses reach a certain amount.
what do you take to be the usual meaning, if not that?
A hired gun who lobbies on behalf of a client (usually as part of a "government relations" firm or a law firm). That is almost certainly what Obama has in mind when he says "no lobbyists." I doubt very much he's going to bar anyone from government service who sent a letter to their Senator.
Rob Lyman,
Thanks for letting me know. I'll be sure to remember that as I observe the crowds of people that walk by my office for their lobby days this spring that are not, in fact, lobbyists, even though they are lobbying and may be legally required to register as the thing they are not if they have spent more than US$50 on the trip.
Silliness aside, I'm not heartened by the notion that crusading moralists don't count as lobbyists by your definition just because they're not drawing a salary.
What about someone who sent a senator a gift teddy bear on valentine's day, and reminded them to propose legislation for cancer research?
What about a wealthy individual who offers a free weekend at his beach home in exchange for an hour of time to talk about their personal charity?
Obama is outright lying again. Let's see if the media notices.....shh.....
Josh,
Whether or not my definition is correct by your lights or in accord with the law, it is the definition a member of the public is most likely to use when judging whether or not Obama has kept his promise.
Rob Lyman,
well, yes. But I don't credit the standard-issue member of the public with a surfeit of brains, and while I appreciate the fact that Obama's manipulation of such rubes is quite masterful I already grow weary of listening to it.
Why this would be a surprise to anyone I can't fathom. Obama isn't a hugely principled guy; he's a politician who's not afraid to discard promises (and constituencies) when they're no longer useful. That's the way the game is played in Washington, and anyone who expected a Chicago machine politician to be different is deluded.
But I confess to a deep curiosity about how closely the watchdogs who bashed Bush on principle will actually hold Obama to account for his promises.
Heh. I see the problem.
Remember these new definitions. The former were the definitions under Bush. The latter are the Obama-media definitions:
-Reneging on promises becomes pragmatism.
-"Patriotic dissent" becomes partisanship.
-Questioning authority becomes causing rancor and strife.
-Calling the president stupid is ok becomes calling the president stupid is racist.
-Having a preacher around you who is a racist taints you becomes what preacher, where?
-Being surrounded by corruption means you are corrupt becomes being surrounded by corruption means you were the only incorruptible person.
-Taking advice from your advisors is letting Cheney run the white house becomes taking advice from your advisors is giving a thoughtful, intellectual response to a problem.
-Bush's watchdogs become Obama's lapdogs.
Lefties said for 8 years about Bush, so now I say it about Obama: This man is not my president. I am embarassed to be an American because of him.
I am embarassed to be an American because of him.
Come on, I'm a a gun-toting right-wing lunatic, and even I'm willing to give him a couple of months before I go that far.
Lefties said for 8 years about Bush, so now I say it about Obama: This man is not my president. I am embarassed to be an American because of him.
It sounds just as idiotic when we say it as it did when they said it. Obama is our president. Doesn't mean you have to support his policies, but politics stop at the sea shore. I'll never be ashamed or embarrassed to be an American.
Look guys, since 2006, the left has played dirty, dirty pool, and painted Bush as both Hitler and Pee Wee Herman for longer. Thye;ve been violent, aggressive, underhanded, lying, twisting, self-righteous America-hating bastards for 8 long years, and gone into overdrive since 2006 got them Congress.
And now we're all supposed to play nice? Bullshit.
Rob, they didn't give Bush or Republicans anytime--throwing eggs at him in 2001? Quid pro quo. The left proved their not about loving america, only their agenda. So its with me. I no longer care love America so long as the left runs it, because they did not extend the same courtesy.
Eric, be careful about saying absolutisms. Even under a president I liked I wouldn't say "never."
And the idiots just took over the government--apparently, being polite, allowing for debate, and being civil get you jeered at by the classless left. Look at Bush's classiness versus the liberal throngs jeering his departure.
Playing by the rules when the other side isn't is suicide and a chumps game. The left is out for blood; nothing less will do from the right. The left is the DailyKos and Huffington Post. Underhanded filth. Now they shall receive the same.
I hope Obama fails.
He is not my president.
I am embarassed to be an American because of him.
Eric, be careful about saying absolutisms.
Oh, when I say "never" I mean "never".
Even thought the most visible part of the left over the last eight years consisted of the poo-flinging monkey variety you find at DU or Kos, there were a hell of a lot of people (maybe even a majority) you didn't see who didn't like Bush but never disowned their country as a result. It's not even that you're sinking to the level of your political opponents, it's that you're sinking to the level of the worst of your opponents.
Besides which, why do you take your cues from people you disagree with? It may give you some kind of catharsis, but really, do you think being classless advances your cause?
Eric,
I'm not trying to engage in a fight with you. But I really do feel you're dead wrong about this:
"Even thought the most visible part of the left over the last eight years consisted of the poo-flinging monkey variety you find at DU or Kos"
---The problem I have isn't that there was this element--all political parties have these fringes. What struck me is twofold: 1) as you said, it was the most visible--meaning people were obviosuly following it in large numbers--it was no longer the fringe; and 2) NO ONE FROM THE LEFT SHUT THEM OUT.
Moveon.org, HuffPo, Kos---this was never properly shut down by those in the position (i.e. left wing leaders with credibility). In fact, the opposite was true--left wingers openly sought out these monkey-poo places to spread their message and gain $$$. These are leaders of the democratic left. They led the democratic takeover. Not merely some fringers. Leaders.
If the democrats are going be led and win byscorch the earth tactics, turnabout is fair play. To play with one hand tied behind your back is ludicrous.
"there were a hell of a lot of people (maybe even a majority) you didn't see who didn't like Bush but never disowned their country as a result. It's not even that you're sinking to the level of your political opponents, it's that you're sinking to the level of the worst of your opponents."
---Or sinking to the level of your opponents' leaders. Lefties would like nothing better than for Republicans to be all polite and kind and nice so they can rip them apart like rottweilers on chihuahuas. it's time to take some steroids and become big dogs of our own.
And those so called people who didn't like bush but still loved america? Did they ever stop their amerikkka-hating leaders? You can't even say they were a majority, because they aren't. The majority of liberals who voted for this wretch of a president are lying little america hating whores. And now they get their way.
Time to burn some ass back, baby.
"do you think being classless advances your cause?"
---Yep. Observe the last 8 years. Now we have an extreme left wing president and left wing congress. And a media so sucking up to him ---he actually went into news rooms to thank them! And when someone dared asked him a question, he told that person, like a paternalistic dick, to knock it off! AND THE OTHERS IN THE NEWS ROOM CHEERED OBAMA ON!
Being "classy" is, as we have just learned, a code word by the left for being vilified beyond all rational belief. Bush is now Hitler. Black is now white. up is now down. C'mon man, I don't want to sound snarky, but the left just proved this and continues to prove it.
I repeat, for all to hear:
I hope Obama fails.
Obama is not my president.
I am embarassed of America because of him.
Well, I'm sorry to hear you feel that way. I just don't believe the left is that monolithic. And I don't think they came to power mainly through underhanded tactics. While it's tempting for people on the right to reflexively defend him, and a lot of the crap his detractors throw at him isn't real, Bush wasn't a very good president. And after running on a small government platform for decades the Republicans spent like drunken sailors when they got control of Congress.
So while the playing field may be tilted a bit in favor of the other side, it was Republican "own goals" that put the Dems into power, not the Kos kids and their Boooshitler ranting.
Please, Eric, while I may have disagreed with some of his policies, I think Bush, when we all get past the MSNBC-propaganda view of history, will find him to be a good president.
The spending, I agree, was bad. It was very poorly done.
I still agree with Iraq and Afghanistan. We won in Iraq. And now we need to surge to fix afghanistan, which was won but we let it slipped away. And no matter what the left says, he didn't lie us into either war.
The original plan for Iraq was bad. He fixed it, against all odds.
He was for a compromise solution with illegal immigration, which I favored: throw out the felons, keep those who haven't comitted crimes and make them pay civil fines. I would include a better border in that.
People who blame the economy on Bush now need to remember that the economy only went down hill when the Democrats took over Congress, and blocked any reform of fannie mae and freddie mac. And Bush had nothing to do with the credit crunch/housing problem; its unfortunate it all came to head int he September before the election.
I didn't like Guantanemo, but calling him a war criminal is too much of a stretch. But that's all you hear now shouted off the rooftops. Guantanemo was his compromise that turned sour; Eisentrager clearly did support him there, but the extreme methods/torture was all too much. Then again, with prisoners now jumping back into Al-Queda, maybe he had a point.
Katrina was a failing, too. But then again, no one blamed other presidents for hurricane or earthquake relief problems. Katrina was huge, but once the army was sent in, things calmed down.
He wasn't a bad speaker or a dummy. Cheney didn't run the white house.
Eric, you're clearly not looking at the venomous outrage pouring out from every hole. It's not anti-Republican, its pure personal hatred of Bush. A hatred driven purely by the KosKids.
You can pretend that its only a few radicals throwing shoes at Bush effigies and burning flags, but it wasn't. Live in the cocoon you've built where there are some liberals who don't hate America or Bush but still didn't like his policies and denounced the KosKids and never burned a flag. All 5 of you should have plenty of space.
I hope Obama fails.
He is not my president.
I am embarassed to be an American because of him.
P.S. I judge a group by how well they slap down the fringe element sacting rude or crazy. The Democrats not only did not slap down the nutroots, they built themselves on them. HuffPo is the mouthpiece, Kos the money arm, Moveon.org. the ad men. Michael Moore, as wacked out as his films are (talented, but so untruthful and biased) is a spokesman for liberals.
When you're led by crazy assholes, people are going to think that you are led by crazy assholes.
So Basic Fact hopes "that Obama fails"?
Going by how the conservatives reacted when much, much milder comments were made about President Bush, I await eagerly for Basic Fact to be denounced by the same conservatives for treason, being Un-American, Not Supporting The President, and Being An Enemy of The Country.
After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
grumpy realist:
"I await eagerly for Basic Fact to be denounced by the same conservatives for treason"
----No one said it was treasonist, troll.
" being Un-American,"
---again, made up by the lefties to have a nice straw man to push down.
"Not Supporting The President,"
----denounced for not supporting the president? really?
"and Being An Enemy of The Country""
---straw man again. I love when liberals make up stuff and expect us all to nod our heads in agreement.
"After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?"
------Yep. That's why I want Obama indicted for war crimes, impeached, thrown in jail, pelted with eggs, has shoes thrown at his head, called the devil by totalitarian dictators at the UN (who are then cheered), burned in effigy, compared to Hitler, be stalked by a mentally deranged documentary maker, have 15 deliberately negative movies and one made-up bio pic made about him in one year in order to sway votes against him (with all star casts), and jeered at when he's finally kicked out of office with the oh-so-grown up slogan "nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah nah."
That shoe up your butt hurts when its on the other foot, eh, buddy boy?
Going by how the conservatives reacted when much, much milder comments were made about President Bush, I await eagerly for Basic Fact to be denounced by the same conservatives for treason, being Un-American, Not Supporting The President, and Being An Enemy of The Country.
Even the most outrageous attacks on the president were tolerated by Democratic leaders, to the point where Michael Moore had a box seat at the 2004 convention. Democrats and leftists have no reason to expect Republican denunciations of people who go overboard in their dislike of Obama, no matter how egregiously.
I hope Basic Fact decides to behave with more decorum, but only because I think our side is better than yours, quite frankly. and not because you've earned it.
And as I remember it, the allegations you're referring to were based not on attacks against Bush but on senior Democrats' politically motivated strategy to undermine the war effort. How else can you explain Harry Reid's announcement that the "surge" was a failure before it even started, and that the war was unwinnable when that clearly wasn't true? Jack Murtha's public indictment of the Haditha Marines before the investigation had even started?
Undermining an ongoing war effort is something I hope the Republicans never do, and if Republican leaders start to pull the same crap I'll be the first to denounce them as behaving in a treasonous manner.
OK, so I can see how Obama can simply not hire people who were lobbyists before applying for jobs in his administration (unless he wants to hire them, of course) - but what actual legal recourse does he have to prevent them from lobbying after they depart?
Contract law. Have a signed employment contract saying no lobbying X department officials for N months after leaving office.
Is it OK to torture lobbyists?
And I'm pretty sure that most of the other sweeping campaign promises he made will also turn out to be more complicated than he thought.
Cow pastures are chock full of more complicated than he thought.
Is he also going to end torture, except where it might yield useful information?
Well, the President said he wouldn't "abandon our ideals for our security" (it's a "false choice" he argued).
But then said we'd reach out to brutal regimes if they "unclenched their fists".
Against us but not their people.
Unconditional negotiations (sophisticated realism it's called) with brutal regimes is apparently not "abandoning our ideals for our security."
Useful information, useful diplomacy, useful security, same things.
From the way he's freezing salaries for top staff, they will all eventually have to take lobbyist or similar jobs to make up for their current income deficit.
The rule against lobbyists entirely misses the point (which seems to be Obama's defining trait as a thinker). Of course people are going to beg the government for favors. That is not the problem.
The problem is that the government has favors to give. The government has the power to actually ruin or protect entire industries and classes of people. It has the power to punish those who act, or say, or even consume certain things while rewarding others for equally silly reasons. If government was as limited in its powers as it was intended to be then lobbying would not be the problem that it is.
In essence, Obama himself is the problem in that he sees an expansive role for government in every aspect of our lives. Until he bans himself and those like him from office he has done nothing to address the issue.
The problem is that the government has favors to give.
Yes, but that's unavoidable as long as we have - and need - government regulating, however minimal, our affairs.
Madison's solution to the problem of "factions" was to multiply them, thereby canceling one another out.
But public choice theory shows that this doesn't quite work that way since those earning benefits from government have a greater incentive to organize than those stopping government from giving benefits. And the incentive for the government to ladle out benefits is greater than that to refrain.
Madison was a brilliant man but I think he made a tremendous error in this one area.
Errrmmmm..one of the reasons why lobbyists are today so pernicious is that they PAY for the favors given them.
We've all become so accustomed to "pay for play" that we forget that bribery, payoffs and "campaign contributions", especially those the bribee can convert to his own benefit, are supposed to be/used to be illegal.
That's not an exercise of Free Speech. That's graft and corruption.
as for Josh, who said "Since everyone is special and has an interest", you win the Dullard of the Week award. Your prize is to become one of nine co-captains of your local soccer team.
Why? Because you're special!!!
so pernicious is that they PAY for the favors given them.
Well, more accurately the people they represent pay for them.
Your objection shouldn't be directed at the lobbyists; it should be directed at the people they represent.
So, how do we stop people from hiring lobbyists to represent them?
of course, one of the main reasons Madison's idea has failed is that we "capped" the number of representatives. There will never be more than 435, unless the government acts to allow for increase.
While that sounds like a lot, part of Madison's argument was that if the ratio of representatives to represented remained high, even a very wealthy faction would have a time organizing enough capital to own enough to get a vote.
Right now, the ratio is way off Madison's ideal. It used to be 1 to 30,000. Now, it's what, 1 to 750,000? Throw in the Senate, it's what, 1 to 500,000?
Since other organizations/technologies have grown up to control vast numbers of people (i.e. corporations), such organizations have the ability to get at 535 people (including the Senate) and influence/bribe them enough.
Of course, if we adhered to Madison's plan/ratio, we'd have what some would think is an unwieldy number. But since that was Madison's point--a government too choked to do anything unless it was in everyone's interest---maybe we should rethink if efficient government is really the point.
Incompetence and Education.
Incompetent people are simply unable to see their own incompetence without education.
Obama is going to make, if I am not mistaken, between 2 and 3 thousand political appointments. Are these going to be the only 2 lobbyists? Then Obama deserves praise. Is this just an effort to test the waters, see how much flak he gets for appointing lobbyists, then back to business to the former pattern? That would be sad.
Basic Fact believes Bush was basically a good President. Basic Fact needs to be educated, or kicked off the island. I have neither the time for the former, nor the power for the latter.
Basic Fact @ January 24, 2009 10:53 PM,
One mitigation to the problem you describe would be to decentralize congress.
There is no need for our representatives to spend most of the year in Washington DC, when technology allows them to cast their votes from their home districts and states.
Not only is it possible, but representatives should be required to spend most of their time in their home districts.
(1) Instead of sending lobbyists to one city, they would have to be sent to hundreds.
(2) Representatives would be more accessible to those they claim to want to represent.
Of course, our representatives don't actually want that. They do everything they can to get away from their constituents, and inside the decadence of the Beltway, where lobbyists have easier access to them than their constituents do.
So the idea would have to be sold as a personal safety and national security measure. Washington DC represents a single point-of-failure. The government would be more resilient, and its members safer from a terrorist nuke, if they were decentralized across the country.
Basic Fact
Yes, and the Republicans built themselves up in the on the batshit insane rantings of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage and the rest of the right wing talk radio/media crowd and their audience of credulous, stupid and easily manipulated right-wing retards. So if we judge the Republicans by your standard we have to find them as being every bit as guilty as the Democrats, you're just pissed off that the Democrats finally figured out that they needed to stop bringing knives to a gun fight.
More ranting bullshit from the deranged, probably syphilitic, brain of Basic Fact.
Yeah, just like there are a bunch of stupid bastards in Russia who think that Josef Stalin was the best leader Russia ever had and really wasn't that bad of a guy.
I love listening to people like Basic Fact rant, you can really see that the only thing motivating BF, and the Republicans like him is hatred, pure and simple. BF is every bit as much of a frothing, fear-crazed and hate-filled lunatic as any of the batshit insane leftists he's ranting about.
Hahahah--comparing Hannity/Limbaugh to Michael Moore/Daily Kos is lol funny. Try Randi Rhodes and NPR--neither of which, you'll notice, is violent and hate mongering. Yes batshit insane, truly.
You got me on Coulter, but Savage is very marginalized. He's complained that Republicans won't go on his show; John Kerry wrote for Kos.
But I think stacking Coulter against Kos/Moveon.org/HuffPo/salon.com/Michael Moore shows just a *slight* dip in one direction.
I love the Bush/Stalin comparison. A new spin on the Bush/Hitler ones. Yes. Bush truly murdered millions in concentration camps to remain in power and deliberately starved people to death.
Yes, hatred does motivate me, Coyote, because that is all that has motivated the left for 8 years: pure, illogical hatred. You've proven that the left does not care about anything except getting in power. America died from irrational jerks like you; now, the gloves are off, and you're going to get it shoved right back in your face.
I hope Obama fails.
Obama is not my president.
I am embarassed to be an American because of him.
Anna Keppa,
allow me to introduce you to the Hackish concept of Ha Ha Only Serious.
In case you still don't get it, I said that "everyone is special" because it is cliche and humorous but also literally true in context, hence using irony to drive the point that "special interest" is a loaded term: everyone thinks theirs is "the public interest", but their position is "special" from everyone else's perspective.
If you did get it, I will proudly accept my Dullard of the Week award whenever it's framing is complete.
Along similar lines, let me define the "irregular" conjugation of the verb "lobby": "I petition for redress of the grievances of stakeholders, you lobby for special interests, he bribes officials for his greedy paymasters".
Finally, FYI, most people who lobby do so with very little or no money. The problem isn't just the Bootleggers, it's also the Baptists. The former have cash, the latter have numbers (not usually a majority, just enough to make a loud noise).
Anna Keppa,
allow me to introduce you to the Hackish concept of Ha Ha Only Serious.
In case you still don't get it, I said that "everyone is special" because it is cliche and humorous but also literally true in context, hence using irony to drive the point that "special interest" is a loaded term: everyone thinks theirs is "the public interest", but their position is "special" from everyone else's perspective.
If you did get it, I will proudly accept my Dullard of the Week award whenever it's framing is complete.
Along similar lines, let me define the "irregular" conjugation of the verb "lobby": "I petition for redress of the grievances of stakeholders, you lobby for special interests, he bribes officials for his greedy paymasters".
Finally, FYI, most people who lobby do so with very little or no money. The problem isn't just the Bootleggers, it's also the Baptists. The former have cash, the latter have numbers (not usually a majority, just enough to make a loud noise).