Perhaps a little more perspective is in order.
Lookout is outraged by lobbyists:
"Lobbyists rank just below child rapists in my book....Individuals who choose to make their living attempting to buy politicians in a legal manner are human fucksticks who I rate just below child rapists on the scale of asshattery."
I agree with him about the influence of big money lobbyists (though not to point of characterizing them as lower than child rapists) and the need for lobbying reform.
Consider the expenditures on lobbying by the industry groups in question:
Quote:
Mortgage bankers and brokers - $30 million in lobbying expenditures '08
Securities & Investment - $92 million in lobbying expenditures in '08
ACORN's lobbying expenditures are too low to show in these Open Secret reports based on lobbying disclosure requirements which must be reported to the US House and Senate
The top ranked industry sector for lobbying expenditures over the last 10 years:
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate - over $3.4 billion
|
So who should lookout really be bitching about? His own industry or ACORN?
Classic is concerned about ACORN'S impact on elections:
"what politician is going to challenge an organization like ACORN during an election year? They have to be nuts too."
Consider campaign contributions to candidates:
Quote:
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate (including commercial banks, finance/credit companies, securites and investment companies) which contributed $62 million to federal candidates in '08 as reported to the Federal Election Commission.
ACORN doesnt have a PAC or contribute to candidates.
|
Who do you think might have greater influence on the candidates and members of Congress once they are elected?
And as
I noted and
Classic acknowledged...I said I was a former lobbyist and never spent a dime on an elected official, nor did the organization I worked for have a PAC...and I have never had any affiliation with ACORN.