Harry Reid claims Romney hasn't paid taxes in 10 years.

[wickedsolo]

Lobbying has been here since the creation of country and, when done properly and ethically, is a very important part of the process.

I like and take comfort in the NRA lobbying folks to ensure my gun rights. I like that my prescription drugs remain cheap because lobbyists from my insurance company push law makers to make it so. I like that there is a voice for me in these matters outside my vote.

Remember, lobbying is constitutionally protected free speech.

Of course these are those who abuse it buy I'm not prepared to throw the baby out with the bath water because of it.

Promoting yourself as one thing and then telling a lobbyist you'll vote their way on something if they fund you is basically false advertisement. How can you claim to represent the people who voted for you on the premise of certain ideologies and political philosophies if you're really going to be indebted to special interest groups?

I'm not arguing that lobbying should be thrown out altogether, but when it comes to campaigning it's those who are abusing the system that ruin it for the rest.

[HoustonRaven]

Show me an example of a politician saying one thing and then changing their mind because of a lobbyist.

I ask that rhetorically. Because both sides have those groups already in their pocket. The left isn't going change their vote on gun control after a meeting with the NRA. The right isn't going to soften their stance on global warming after meeting with the Sierra Club.

The voters still hold them accountable, not the lobbyists.

[wickedsolo]

Show me an example of a politician saying one thing and then changing their mind because of a lobbyist.

I ask that rhetorically. Because both sides have those groups already in their pocket. The left isn't going change their vote on gun control after a meeting with the NRA. The right isn't going to soften their stance on global warming after meeting with the Sierra Club.

The voters still hold them accountable, not the lobbyists.

Maybe I'm just an idealist, but I don't think that any politician should be in anyone's pocket.

If you take money from someone eventually you're going to owe them something and that could come at the cost of those who you're serving.

[HoustonRaven]

Maybe I'm just an idealist, but I don't think that any politician should be in anyone's pocket.

If you take money from someone eventually you're going to owe them something and that could come at the cost of those who you're serving.

So how do they raise money then?

By individual donors and that's it? If so, are you then opposed to interest groups? Do they not have a seat at the table?

[NCRAVEN]

So how do they raise money then?

By individual donors and that's it? If so, are you then opposed to interest groups? Do they not have a seat at the table?

I think he hit the nail on the head. He's an idealist, to some degree so am I.

I would love to take the money out of politics and just have a series of townhall style debates and that's it!

But I am also a realist and understand that there is too much money in the business of poltics and it will never change.

[wickedsolo]

So how do they raise money then?

By individual donors and that's it? If so, are you then opposed to interest groups? Do they not have a seat at the table?

I'm not necessarily opposed to interest groups getting a seat at the table.

However, I don't see a place for an interest group giving a politician money with the unspoken agreement that at some point down the road that politician is going to essentially be forced into doing something for that interest group. Especially if that representative's constituency is against that interest group or what that specific interest is.