The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

[Slap Shot]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Nonsense. I personally have known two heterosexual couples who would otherwise have not gotten married (been together for 10+ years) who finally caved and had civil ceremonies in order to obtain health care benefits. Their reasons for getting married had nothing whatsoever to do with religion, and everything to do with practical, financial benefits of legal marriage.

Such as most likely ending up in a higher tax bracket?

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Wow, you've got your sights set pretty high to expect intelligent discussion around here. If you come across any, keep it too yourself so the trolls won't find it.

Oops, forgot a nonsensical statement about plankton. I'll remember next time.

Despite the differences of opinion (hello) I find the snarkquotient to be quite low here comapred with other forums. I know we've all jumped the shark, in the end there are posters such as Bob and Pio that I disagree with but would never classify as crazy and would love with which to share a beer or two and I can't say that about a lot other places.

Human nature is such that we are stubborn, stubborn ******** and we all have an agenda. Recognizing such traits in all of us can facilitate seeing past the b.s. to recognize that in the end we all want the same thing even if we disgree about the road to travel. I honestly believe Congress could get back to such were it not for the lobbyists (see a recent 60 Minutes interview with Jack Abramoff) we could cut the divisiveness by tenfold.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Like any antibiotic, it should only be used for those special cases that are truly virulent.

Hi, you must be new to the political forums here. Let me show you around.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

If PPACA is so great, why did they exempt themselves?

If fiduciaries have a "prudent investment rule" why is the Social Security Administration allowed to invest 100% in only one security?

No, you're clearly not a Fox News stooge at all. I don't know how any of us thought you were when you spout such positions as this...

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

The problem with polygamy is the genetics involved. It's the same reason sperm donors are capped at a maximum number of children born of a single person.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Despite the differences of opinion (hello) I find the snarkquotient to be quite low here comapred with other forums. I know we've all jumped the shark, in the end there are posters such as Bob and Pio that I disagree with but would never classify as crazy and would love with which to share a beer or two and I can't say that about a lot other places.

Human nature is such that we are stubborn, stubborn ******** and we all have an agenda. Recognizing such traits in all of us can facilitate seeing past the b.s. to recognize that in the end we all want the same thing even if we disgree about the road to travel. I honestly believe Congress could get back to such were it not for the lobbyists (see a recent 60 Minutes interview with Jack Abramoff) we could cut the divisiveness by tenfold.

I think the lobbyists become more and more of an issue as power becomes more and more consolidated in Washington DC. If we were to go back to a truly federalized system, the bulk of power residing in the states again, you'd see the money in DC dwindle, eventually becoming a mere fraction of its current value. And I don't think it would rise in the states commensurate with its drop in DC. The same dollar spent could only impact a mere portion of the nation rather than the country as a whole like it does now.

Reining in lobbyists, yet another plus for the return of states' rights and a truly federalist form of government.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I think the lobbyists become more and more of an issue as power becomes more and more consolidated in Washington DC. If we were to go back to a truly federalized system, the bulk of power residing in the states again, you'd see the money in DC dwindle, eventually becoming a mere fraction of its current value. And I don't think it would rise in the states commensurate with its drop in DC. The same dollar spent could only impact a mere portion of the nation rather than the country as a whole like it does now.

Reining in lobbyists, yet another plus for the return of states' rights and a truly federalist form of government.

It depends on what policy we're talking about...yes, there are many federal responsibilities that could be improved by moving them to the states. Not sure if lobbyist 'disease' is one of them. I would bet if real special interest legislation shifted to the states...that lobbyists would follow. Today, money follows the power to use it. And there are few more powerful entities in this country than big money special interests.

In fact, it might even be harder to root out lobbyists if they got further ingrained in state govts versus Washington.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I think the lobbyists become more and more of an issue as power becomes more and more consolidated in Washington DC. If we were to go back to a truly federalized system, the bulk of power residing in the states again, you'd see the money in DC dwindle, eventually becoming a mere fraction of its current value. And I don't think it would rise in the states commensurate with its drop in DC. The same dollar spent could only impact a mere portion of the nation rather than the country as a whole like it does now.

Reining in lobbyists, yet another plus for the return of states' rights and a truly federalist form of government.

I think you're going to see the money filter down to the state level regardless. We have clean elections here in Maine so every candidate gets ~ $3500 to spend on campaign materials. The kicker is you can't take other money and spend it, even your own. We also have term limits (but that's another post) which means we have a real hard time finding qualified candidates who want to run for the state legislature (the pay is crap and the hours miserable which plays havoc with your full-time job - yes our legislators work) but the clean elections have made it easier. Tonight I heard from two different Democratic candidates that their Republican opponents are opting out of clean election funding and plan to raise at least $10,000 each for the election. So races that normally would have cost $7,000 will now cost upwards of $20,000. Eventually both parties will end up opting out and career politicians will start playing musical chairs in the legislature to avoid term limits. All bought and paid for by lobbyists...

 

[Bakunin]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

The problem with polygamy is the genetics involved. It's the same reason sperm donors are capped at a maximum number of children born of a single person.

Fortunately, professional athletes aren't capped at all and can continue spreading the love.

 

[Foxton]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I think the lobbyists become more and more of an issue as power becomes more and more consolidated in Washington DC. If we were to go back to a truly federalized system, the bulk of power residing in the states again, you'd see the money in DC dwindle, eventually becoming a mere fraction of its current value. And I don't think it would rise in the states commensurate with its drop in DC. The same dollar spent could only impact a mere portion of the nation rather than the country as a whole like it does now.

Reining in lobbyists, yet another plus for the return of states' rights and a truly federalist form of government.

Why? They could spend less to get more in smaller territories of the country. And since they can be more focused those states would have to deal with far more interest. On top of that you've swung the pendulum back to a system that failed miserably. (articles of confederation style gov't with states holding the power)

The only real way to reign them in is with a national effort to limit their ability to influence. But that's not going to happen because the same people who pass that law receive far too much from the system.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Why? They could spend less to get more in smaller territories of the country. And since they can be more focused those states would have to deal with far more interest. On top of that you've swung the pendulum back to a system that failed miserably. (articles of confederation style gov't with states holding the power)

The only real way to reign them in is with a national effort to limit their ability to influence. But that's not going to happen because the same people who pass that law receive far too much from the system.

The lobbyist money wouldn't rise commensurate at the state level with its drop at the state level for a few reasons. First, you have to employ more lobbyists. These groups plying money into Washington don't have unlimited budgets. If they have a team of 10 people in DC, then they'll need more teams, likely smaller, covering either individual states or group of states. Regardless, it's more people, more travel, with subsequent less money to make donations. Logistics and salaries (lobbyists themselves earn a pretty decent paycheck, from the few I know around here) eat up a lot more of a budget than people often realize. Second, in a "patchwork" style legislative system, getting a law changed in MN won't be as effective if it's not also been changed to something similar in WI, IL, IA, etc.. Again, it removes a certain amount of efficiency from doing business. Even if it's a product that doesn't create a high transportation cost, there are still considerations because when it comes to hot button issues, people are much more likely to move to another state than they are to another nation. And in the extreme, there are migration costs for a state to consider during the legislative process. In MN, for example, it would be of a much greater consideration in legislatures' minds as they debate a mere 15 mile from the WI border. Migration considerations would be relatively minor compared to logistics because you're often only talking about the fringe fanatics.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Agree with many of your points there about higher costs.

Yet I don't think the constraints on special interests are limited by money...but rather by access to the limited number of folks in Congress, etc. So I would be fairly confident that if further legislation responsibility was moved to 50 states that insurance lobbies would be in all 50 states or big oil in the states it needed to be...tomorrow. The additional millions are a rounding error to these guys.

 

[Handyman]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

The lobbyist money wouldn't rise commensurate at the state level with its drop at the state level for a few reasons. First, you have to employ more lobbyists. These groups plying money into Washington don't have unlimited budgets. If they have a team of 10 people in DC, then they'll need more teams, likely smaller, covering either individual states or group of states. Regardless, it's more people, more travel, with subsequent less money to make donations. Logistics and salaries (lobbyists themselves earn a pretty decent paycheck, from the few I know around here) eat up a lot more of a budget than people often realize. Second, in a "patchwork" style legislative system, getting a law changed in MN won't be as effective if it's not also been changed to something similar in WI, IL, IA, etc.. Again, it removes a certain amount of efficiency from doing business. Even if it's a product that doesn't create a high transportation cost, there are still considerations because when it comes to hot button issues, people are much more likely to move to another state than they are to another nation. And in the extreme, there are migration costs for a state to consider during the legislative process. In MN, for example, it would be of a much greater consideration in legislatures' minds as they debate a mere 15 mile from the WI border. Migration considerations would be relatively minor compared to logistics because you're often only talking about the fringe fanatics.

Oh I completely disagree here. You assume they would need to employ the same tactics in each state that they do in Washington, and they wouldn't. You are right the money may be less, but the power and influence would grow exponentially. We would go back to the days of the old school political machines only now with multi billion dollar lobbyists behind them pulling the strings.

The game changes in that now lobbyists will have new strategies. Now lobbyists won't have to spend money lobbying half of Congress to their side (or just the influential ones) they can spend money in specific states to get their agenda passed there. It will cost less and will be way easier and they will pretty much own those states. Then they will play the states off against each other, especially border states. It will get ugly.

So while you are right the money will be less, the influence wont be it will just be centered on a smaller area. The results will make Tammany Hall look like a game of Monopoly.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Oh I completely disagree here. You assume they would need to employ the same tactics in each state that they do in Washington, and they wouldn't. You are right the money may be less, but the power and influence would grow exponentially. We would go back to the days of the old school political machines only now with multi billion dollar lobbyists behind them pulling the strings.

The game changes in that now lobbyists will have new strategies. Now lobbyists won't have to spend money lobbying half of Congress to their side (or just the influential ones) they can spend money in specific states to get their agenda passed there. It will cost less and will be way easier and they will pretty much own those states. Then they will play the states off against each other, especially border states. It will get ugly.

So while you are right the money will be less, the influence wont be it will just be centered on a smaller area. The results will make Tammany Hall look like a game of Monopoly.

I'm not so sure about that. According to Wiki, there are 7382 state legislators, and 15 states have term limits. It would be a lot harder for lobbyists to build up the sort of long-term crony relationships that are rampant in the relatively small US Congress with its relentlessly stable membership.

 

[Handyman]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

How much do you think lobbyists throw at the average Congressmen per cycle? On the state level it would take a fraction of the money to buy their vote. (think donations...how much does it cost to relect a state rep and how much money do they earn) Hell I bet you could buy off half the Minnesota Legislature with the money used to pay off a few high profile senators in Congress. Go to some of the smaller states with less population and money and you can probably buy the whole thing plus the governor. Throw in a few trips to Hawaii and junkets in Vegas and you are in. As DC has shown us, once you are in it is all over but the crying.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I'm not so sure about that. According to Wiki, there are 7382 state legislators, and 15 states have term limits. It would be a lot harder for lobbyists to build up the sort of long-term crony relationships that are rampant in the relatively small US Congress with its relentlessly stable membership.

Just the opposite where term limits are in place. There are no term limits for lobbyists, who know their way around the system a lot better than a lot of naive freshman legislators and are more than happy to show the new kids the ropes...in exchange for a few favors. Make the right "friends" and in four years they're in leadership and more than happy to introduce you to the incoming freshmen as an expert in your field. Hell, it doesn't even cost them money - lobbyists save the legislators time and write the bills, provide the talking points all because they're "pals" with the legislators. I was at a town hall meeting and a freshman state rep was sitting behind me. She was explaining to her friend that she had been introduced to a guy by the Republican leader and he was just a wiz about the gambling industry. He really knew his stuff. I came home and googled him and lo and behold, he's a "consultant" for the gambling industry. What a coincidence! We now have two casinos in Maine and I bet the biggest expense Las Vegas had to pay was his salary. Lobbying with term limits and public financing is much easier. A little more expensive to donate to legislative campaigns with no public money, but a whole lot easier since you have more control over who wins the election.

 

[bronconick]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

That's been our experience in Michigan as well, though less quickly because we inexplicably have a full time legislature that makes the 3rd most in the country behind California and Illinois.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I think that to get the same impact country wide that they do now the lobby would have to spend more at the state level. A US congressman can enact policy that resonates across the country with one vote. You'd need fifty of those votes by state congress members.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I think that to get the same impact country wide that they do now the lobby would have to spend more at the state level. A US congressman can enact policy that resonates across the country with one vote. You'd need fifty of those votes by state congress members.

There's plenty of money to go around.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

There's plenty of money to go around.

The same amount that's a available today except at present it only has to reach less than 500.