Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: I have spent 1000 hours on this solution. Please take a minute to check it out.

Posted 2 years ago on Oct. 18, 2011, 10:05 p.m. EST by LobbyDemocracy (615)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

My concern has to do with the power of the lobbyists representing big business and special interests on Capitol Hill. How is it that even though laws have been passed governing the power of lobbyists in Washington, DC in the wake of the Jack Abermoff scandal, the amount of money spent on the process continues to increase? The money shifts around from one direction to another. They find ways to circumvent the restrictions and bring the desires of big business and special interests to our elected leaders. The Supreme Court has sided with big business spending whatever it wants to spend to influence the process, citing their right to free speech. What are we to do? How can we overcome the $3.5 billion dollars that was spent lobbying last year?

I am writing this because I would like to propose a solution to that quandary. Rather than continuing to attempt to muzzle the voices of the lobbyists, why don't we just empower the majority and bring their voice to the table. Although I am aware of the fact that there is something disturbing about the necessity of this process, something must be done to make our elected leaders attend to the people that they are supposed to be representing.

I have founded a lobbying organization dedicated to representing the interests of the majority. The organization is not conservative or liberal. It is not here to represent Democrats or Republicans. It is here to represent the interests of the American people, whatever those interests might be.

We are polling our membership to determine what issues we will support. Any issue that reaches 65% support or opposition nationally we will take up and bring to the government. We will sift through the data district by district and find every district whose members are aligned with the national polling data. We will contact the elected representatives of all of these districts with the desires of their constituents.

In addition to the polling data guiding the direction of the organization, it will also give us strength in dealing with our elected leaders. We will have solid data supporting the fact that their constituents stand for the issue, and expect them to take action on it. The elected officials will have the opportunity to write back to their constituents via the website. We will open up the communication lines between the majority and their elected representatives and make sure that the representatives understand that if they do not heed the desires of their constituents they will be voted out of office.

Although I have put a lot of time into this organization to make it possible, it can only be effective with your help. We need the majority to step up and make its opinions heard.

If you are interested please check us out at www.lobbydemocracy.com. If you like what you see, or have questions please let us know here so that we can rise to the top of the list and be seen by others.

425 Comments

425 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by nickgonewalkabout (6) 2 years ago

Corporate donations to political parties are currently tax-free (though gift-tax is applied to individuals over $13,000). Change this tax code, and democracy will begin to normalise.

Note; JP Morgan gave 4.5 million to the NYC police department prior to the brutal 'white-shirt' led crackdown. It seems they're prepared to pay millions more to destabilize and brutalise the OWS agenda, such as derailing this website with spam and generally trying to make OWS look foolish and confused.

These times try men's souls. Keep your head up. Stay on your feet, remain resolute but non-violent. The vision of a better future is in your hands.

Rise like Lions after slumber In unvanquishable number, Shake your chains to earth like dew Which in sleep had fallen on you- Ye are many — they are few. Percy Bysshe Shelley

[-] 2 points by sunshower (80) 2 years ago

Thank you so much for initiating www.lobbydemocracy.com

No more just talking to the choir

It is what OWS needs to have a serious and powerful voice in Washington- one that will be heard across America and affect the results of many elections – bills and laws

Freezing winds, rain and snow engulf Zucotti park tonight. My heart goes out to all those who are there and in other American cities, keeping the OWS movement alive and strong for all of us.

It’s high time for OWS to have a powerful lobby in order for us to occupy both floors of Congress, where all our voices can speak truth to the corrupt powers that have no legitimate place in our government.
There is no better way for OWS to make a difference in Washington.

I, for one, am happy to pay $20 to join your membership and increase our effectiveness in standing against the injustices that American citizens are facing and also initiate and sponsor bills that would eliminate them.

WE ARE A FORCE TO BE RECKONED WITH – AND OUR EVER INCREASING NUMBERS AND STRENGTH MAKE US A FORMIDABLE ONE.

Never doubt the power of a group of committed people to change the world. That's about the only way it has ever happened in the past

Winners never quit and quitters never win!

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

The new site is open and we are open for membership. Check it out and let me know what you think.

[-] 1 points by sunshower (80) 2 years ago

I have and I love it! Thank you

[-] 1 points by mrmccarrin (18) 2 years ago

Thank you for checking out our site. Hopefully you can take part in our community. We appreciate your support - Megan

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Thank you. We have a lot of work to do moving forward, but it is nice to have one stage of the journey finished.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago


No, this is the last thing we need. No Thanks!



[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Thank you for your support. I think the hardest part of the process will be over the next couple of months. Once we get to a reasonable number of members and pick up some press, I think that we will not have a problem making the organization grow from there. I am a little worried about how many people we can get to make the initial leap of faith in the ability to change the system, but I guess we will have a better idea of that in the next several weeks. Look forward to hearing from you in the future either here or through the site.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Amen.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Lobbying for the Religious Right as well ?

God Bless You !

[-] 2 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I am also an agnostic, but other than that your assessments of me have been spot on.

[-] 2 points by KeepUpTheGoodWork (8) 2 years ago

Great ideas above

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Another pawn. : )

[-] 0 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

We are now up and running. Please take a minute and check out the system that we have put in place. If you have questions please let me know.

[-] 0 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Thank you. 12 days until full launch. We will see what becomes of it then.

[-] 2 points by Willem (35) 2 years ago

We need to evolve towards another monetary system, a different way of rewarding people, creating incentives.

Please read: William Catton's 'Bottleneck: Humanity's Impending Impasse', Chapter 12: How Money Led to Dehumanisation

or some of the works by Kenneth E. Boulding

why money and business as usual is not natural and not an option in the long term

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Although I am conceptually interested with ideas such as yours, I am also looking for an idea that has immediate implementation. The system that I am promoting is a logistical system not a policy solution. Policy solutions can come out of the logistical system that I am creating. Right now the majority has been disenfranchised and needs the means to foment change. That is the solution that I am trying to provide.

I wish you luck in your journey to redefine our monetary system, but my energy needs to continue in the direction that I am headed.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

It's a good idea but instead i would rather just abolish the lobbying process.

No more money in politics. Those guys all suck at their jobs and no one should be financing their campaigns with an 8% approval rating.

[-] 1 points by rusj (5) 2 years ago

In the surface... this sounds like a good idea but playing the game the oppressor have mastered is like breathing the same evil the oppressor breaths... do not make OWS political.. We'll be playing to the hands of these greedy individuals...

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Spend that much time actually organizing for your position and you might find some limited success.

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 2 years ago

You are correct that the courts have sided with the big businesses, but I still feel that getting money out of lobbying is the solution, rather than putting more money in.

Don't forget that these other lobbyists, backed by the businesses, that you're fighting against can gather their own statistics. They will claim that their statistics cover more people than yours, since your statistics only cover however many people you have connected to your site, and they have people right there in DC to talk to the representatives in person. Someone trained on what to say, how to say it, and who to say it to. Not to mention the monetary contributions they are capable of making that you won't be.

While sometimes fighting fire with fire is necessary, I feel like this is like trying to stop a forest fire by lighting a candle.

[-] 1 points by KofA (495) from Muenster, TX 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Besides asking people to read it, how do you plan to win OWS, much less the wider public, over to your proposal?

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I have engaged in conversation with people about Lobby Democracy’s website I have run against two criticisms more than any others: “This is a right wing site.” and “What do you stand for?”

I would like to take a minute to address each of these criticisms. I understand why people think that the site leans to the right, and would like to explain why it appears that way. The first reason is simple. The political conversation right now is dominated by the republican presidential primaries. Although it might not be the most invigorating conversation, it currently dominates the airwaves. I personally do not support most of the ideas being discussed as part of this debate, there and millions of people who do, and the results of this primary will help guide the direction of our country. If you support some of these ideas you need to sift through which proposals you like better. If you don’t, you need to understand them to be able to argue against them.

The second reason that the site appears to lean to the right brings us back to the question of what I stand for. I personally lean pretty far to the left. In an attempt to keep the site politically neutral I may have overcompensated in an attempt to not let my personal bias interfere with the mission of Lobby Democracy. I still believe it is important to separate my personal perspectives from those of the organization; however, I think it is a understandable desire to know where I stand on the issues.

I would therefore like to lay out some of my dreams for what this organization can achieve. It is important to remember that this section does not represent the issues of the organization. I, like all other members, will only have one vote in the organization. I do think, as some have noted, to put forward a dream as to what is possible with the power of Lobby Democracy. The following ideas might not express your dream, but this organization is all about the possibility of our society to change. Think about what you would change if you had your druthers. If you can build a coalition around them we can help make them a reality. So without further ado, here is a core list of things that I would change if I had the power to do so.

On Taxes and the Budget Deficit.

I think that our society has fallen for the theory of trickledown economics despite no solid evidence of its functionality as an economic theory. What we have to remember is that 70% of our economy is consumer driven. As more and more money has collected at the top, demand has fallen. This means that even though the rich have plenty of capital to be “job-creators,” there is no demand for the products that these workers would create. In the words of Henry Ford “It is not the employer who pays the wages. Employers only handle the money. It is the customer who pays the wages.”

Our tax code has become riddled with deductions and exemptions that not only favor the rich, but also decrease market efficiency. We need to clean the code and create a simple tax structure. Without spending months working out the details, I cannot propose an exact tax structure that will balance the budget. You can build a simple framework given the total expenditure as a percentage of GDP by the federal government. The current rate sits around 24%. At the beginning of the George Bush’s presidency in 2000 it was 18%. This means if you created a gradated system where the top tax rate was 30%, you could cover all of our government expenses.

On Energy Policy

I believe that reducing our dependence on fossil fuels is an absolute necessity as we move forward. Carbon emissions are changing the world that we live in and destabilizing the ecosystem. On top of the environmental impacts, the fossil fuel market does not properly take into account the externalities of fossil fuel use. These include not only the environmental costs, but also the costs of military engagement designed to secure access to oil and other fossil fuels, federal subsidies and tax breaks, and health costs. The estimated total cost of these externalities varies widely, but most of the estimates fall between $5 and $15 of unseen costs for every gallon of gas. If you search for “price of gasoline including all externalities” you will find a large number of articles from various sources examining these factors. Even if we are on the low end of that estimate, renewable energy sources are already much cheaper than gasoline.

We need to get behind clean, domestic energy sources the way that our country mobilized to put a man on the moon. This journey will help our environment, simplify our foreign policy, cut our long term government expenditures, and make us leaders in the worldwide market for renewable energy. Let’s find solutions and let’s find them now.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Please stop by and check us out when you get a minute. We are starting to grow and develop, but we can only do so with the continued support of the majority.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Back again to answer any questions you might have.

[-] 1 points by CoExist (178) 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I think that might be a slightly far fetched solution. Beyond the other problems, I think that the maintenance and programming of the holograms would be more expensive than the current system.

[-] 1 points by CoExist (178) 2 years ago

Not so the run just like a laptop. Power on Power off

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

Just what we need, another lobbyist.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

A lobbyist fighting for the rights of the majority, rather than fighting for the 1%.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

A majority of right-wingers, according to your website. Or so you hope. Take money from "the people" to do what you want. Yet another attempt to co-opt and/or capitalize on OWS.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

SPAM ALERT

This is a blatant right wing political agenda. "Republican" appears 6 times on the home page, "Democrat" and "Independent" do not appear at all. No information is available unless you you register - an attempt to harvest email address.

Anyone with even half a brain knows that lobbying is a big part of the problem - not the solution.

SPAM ALERT

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Hello again.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago
[-] 0 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I signed your petition and commented on your post.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Thank you.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Have you checked out our site?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yes I have and I have been including your site address in contacts, posts and reply's that I make elsewhere. I am trying to get people to start taking action for themselves instead of depending on someone else to get the job done for them.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Thank you so much. Even if you are not ready to sign up for the site yet, we would also appreciate it if you would sign up for our newsletter or put your info in on the application page so that we can add you to our list of interest and keep in contact with you.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I will. I am trying to do all that I can and sometimes I can get bogged down in my advocating. But I will definitely be stopping in to check it out and to see how It can work for me as well as Us the 99%. Keep up the good work.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Thanks again. We are doing some site maintenance to clean it up a little bit. We also just signed on a advertising and PR guy to help get us off the ground.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I think that we will have a hard time convincing the country that going through a full scale revolution is the solution. I may be wrong about that, but I think the majority is interested in change from within the structures that we have. I am not saying that Lobby Democracy is the same as the OWS. Clearly they are different approaches. I think they both attend to the same core issues though, and we need to be open to various approaches to reaching our goals.

In a sense I'd agree. Of course the vast majority of the 99% is not revolutionary or for that matter not especially political at all and they are unlikely to be moved by so called revolutionary platitudes and nostrums, though I don't think they're likely to be moved by reformist platitudes and nostrums either.

Nevertheless, some of them have been moved and how? They have been moved by the fairly radical act of people taking over a public space and that has been reproduced in thousands of communities across the nation. To a lesser extent they have also been moved by the Declaration of the Occupation but lists more than 22 greivances. And they continue to be moved by these two things. The movement needs to keep on keeping on. It needs to keep on doing exactly what it is doing. Building more and more occupations, staying open to as many perspectives as possible, and not narrowing its vision to a handful of glib reforms.

[-] 0 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I am not asking Occupy to change its path at all. I think it is doing a great job of bringing the ideas to the forefront. I do, however, think that we need to add a system that will help attain the goals of the majority. That is what Lobby Democracy is here for. Not to supersede or replace Occupy, but to run parallel to it.

[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

The goals of the majority are being very well maintained thanks to the nature of the decision making process of the GA

[-] 0 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I would argue that if the goals of the majority were being well maintained by the GA thousands of people would not have to be occupying public places in this country. I think that the occupation has done a great deal of good, but to say that we have given the majority a voice in the political realm I would say is a gross overstatement. We need the means to influence the political process.

[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

We need to BE the political process. At least that is my understanding of any careful reading of the Declaration of the Occupation. In order to do that we need to organize and recruit tens of millions of more people to occupy. That is our job now. That is the road forward.

[-] 0 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I think it is more likely to draw tens of millions of people to a system like lobby democracy than it is to draw them to occupy.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

Then why do you keep spamming the forums for support? Trying to co-opt the movement for your own benefit ...

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I think that it is amazing that you consider this spam just because I do not agree with your entire approach to the problem. You insist that you represent 99% of the population, but then when part of that 99% disagrees with any part of your mission, you think they are spamming or trolling or otherwise disrupting your party. If you want there to be change there needs to be discourse. This discourse is something that I am willing to participate in and that should be embraced not shunned.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

Your discourse is focused on harvesting the email addresses of people who sign up on your right-wing site.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

My discourse in focused on gathering up a group of individuals from across the political spectrum to engage in an open discussion of the issues for the sake of building a powerful vehicle to represent the majority of the country.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

OWS is the powerful vehicle to represent the majority.

FYI The majority is not Republican.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I agree with you that the majority is not Republican. Part of the reason why I feel comfortable starting this organization is that I believe that the majority of our country leans to the left. I think this will be represented by the organization.

I have explained to you many times where I stand and what I think the organization will provide. I understand that you think that I am part of some right wing conspiracy theory and I do not know how to make you understand that this is not true.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Knock yourself out. Right now OWS not only seems to have the energy, but it is inherently more transformative than a lobbying effort

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I understand that the OWS has a lot more momentum now. If you look at a lot of the protest movements in the past though, some of their greatest contributions were legislative or constitutional changes. These will be easier to create with the addition of Lobby Democracy.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Launch party is going great. In double digits on membership and growing,

[-] 1 points by jhoffman (22) 2 years ago

email me at johnhoffman34@yahoo.com. I'll show you my economic paper when its completed, and i wouldn't mind taking a look at some of your work as well.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Done John.

[-] 1 points by drunkenmonkiees (18) 2 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/drunkenmonkiees

dedicated to the occupy movement

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

We all need to pull together behind the voice of the majority.

[-] 1 points by drunkenmonkiees (18) 2 years ago

yes sir we do need to do that!!!

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Launch party in 3 hours if anyone is around in philly.

[-] 1 points by nsd72 (31) 2 years ago

What about this idea? I've been in the field for years...

I'm in London, been speaking to the occupy people here. I've worked for a decade in the field of social justice/wellbeing. Seems to me that although there are many voices here, there's a common thread that links all protesters: whether it's justice, greed, the economy, jobs, pay, the future... what this is really about is how we treat each other (& the world we share).

Remember the Peace Sign, & how by capturing the zeitgeist it attracted millions of followers in the 70s? Why don't we adopt a new symbol that captures today's zeitgeist that acts like a sort of umbrella for all our views?

This would give the current amorphous, multi-celled mass enough identity to bring some cohesion and more impact. But like the symbiotic jellyfish, you can hack it into pieces and it will survive... so they can't take it down and there's an underlying purpose and methodology that they can't dispute.

What's that identity? It's summed up in the phrase "I care about mankind and the world our children will inherit." And the underlying methodology is wellbeing-focused - because we all deserve wellbeing and improving wellbeing has tremendous social, economic and political consequences.

Not trying to sell anyone anything - just seems to me the 99% lack a uniting symbol so please come back to me with your comments. The symbol I propose is called the tocamu (see tocamu.com) and you can read/copy & paste a one page sheet to your friends if you want to (click to enlarge to readable size): http://www.tocamu.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Unite-Letter.png

Wouldn't it make sense if this army marched under one flag?

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I appreciate your attempt to bring everyone together. I think that art and symbolism are powerful forces in unifying a group. I am not the right person to talk to about getting the tocamu picked up by Occupy. I have no direct affiliation with occupy, although I think that Lobby Democracy shares a common thread with the movement. I wish you the best of luck in helping pull everyone together to work for a common cause.

[-] 1 points by nsd72 (31) 2 years ago

thanks for this - i'll just keep asking the question in case it has merit. if it does, it might be picked up. you never know!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Your a Republican.

Your site says nothing about Obama's Job Bill which the Republicans are blocking at every turn. Yet you want us informed on the Republican Candidates because they will be running against Obama. Give me a break!


I think you are just a very clever well funded Troll.


You are being PAID by someone with deep pockets. You likely are funded by Tea Party in fact or someone affiliated with them.

But, here's the clincher, your employers think we're ignorant and don't pay attention. Well, they were wrong. We are not ignorant and we learning about how others might try to tear this movement down. We are highly adaptive in focusing on the truth. You come here on these false premises to get us to drink your koolaide, but we don't want it.

We can still see how this GREED works. Your a pawn being paid by some very wealthy and fearful sponsors who think they can still stem this tide. Well, they can't and, your time is paid for, and probably very well I might add. Your getting what you want out of this deal, money, and your rich sponsors they are running scared. They greedily want to save more money by spending a little here to diffuse this movement into confusion.

We are troll proof. We wade through a pile of these ranting raving trolls constantly in here. They put their flame right on us. We adapt because we are like you, human. We have learned to see the Truth through the clutter. IT is at our fingertips and we know how to use it. And fact-check. Heard of that. You failed.



Seeeeee Yaaaaaaaaaa

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I am neither well paid or sponsered by someone with deep pockets. The site has grown from a tiny framework to its structure today. For the first 10 months I taught myself as much html and java code as I could to get the site off the ground. I bartend full time to pay the bills and have put all of my free time for the last year into structuring an organization that I think can help create results.

The apparent Republican leaning of the site might be caused by my own political beliefs, but not for the reason that you think. I lean pretty far to the left. In my attempts to not have the site tainted by my own political leanings I may have over compensated and presented too much of the rights perspective. As we move forward as an organization, the discussion will be driven by membership, and I will not have to make as many decisions about what is covered.

I am sorry that you think what you do about the organization, and would like you to check back in with us as we grow and develop to see if your perspectives change. This is an honest attempt by one member of the 99% to create a system to help the majorities opinion fight against the interests of big business and special interests that have overwhelmed the conversation for decades. All the best to you and if you have any other questions please let me know.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Personally, I think many are colored too much by their narratives and totally mistaken these narratives for the truth.

We are turning a corner in how the entire world will see itself moving forward. We have the technology to interconnect us all, and we may now determine the truth easily through our fingertips. As we seek it, we will become very adept at arriving more truthful answers then we were fed in the past. And we will hold those accountable who lie to us. Those days of a free pass are over. We are highly aware and mobile.

The Republicans up there on the hill today are some of the worse liars in our history. They have sold us out to the RICH 1%. This is the plain truth. They never saw a tax cut they didn't like and when it came time to pay for them, they asked the poor to pay for it. Let's cut social programs, but no way can we cut defense or God forbid raise taxes on the rich. Because after all, aren't they just lazy drug users ?

Here's a good thread that details an on-going Republican Lie, how the rich are the Job Creators:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/if-the-rich-are-jobs-creators-where-are-the-jobs/


Pure Capitalism is fueled by Pure GREED.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I finally agree with a post of yours. I think that increases in technology give us the opportunity to stay more informed and more involved than ever before. The entire political process has been tailored to suit the 1%. I understand your criticisms of my site and my approach to tackling the problem, but I am trying to harness the same power you are talking about. If I structured the site as a liberal site it would get dismissed and minimize the power of the organization. The site has to be flexible and reflect the interests of whoever joins it. By leaving it open, or possibly even leaning the wrong way, it proves more powerfully the desire of the majority and the need for change.

[-] 1 points by mickydees (13) 2 years ago

OH MY FUCKING GOD YOU SOLVED THE PROBLEM! THANK YOU! THANK YOU SO MUCH!

now how did u and your big 'ol brain come up with that an all the rest of us couldnt get past shuckin corn, gee willikers

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Apparentlly, you do not think it is the best idea. I hope that you will consider the possibilities of it before dismissing it.

[-] 1 points by MDubbs (16) 2 years ago

I came to the same conclusion on my own, you are an American hero.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Thank you for your support. Hope to hear from you on the site.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Wish I could stay up and continue to comment, but I have a big day tomorrow and need to get some sleep. We hope to hear from you all in the future.

[-] 1 points by UPonLocal (309) 2 years ago

It is a REPUBLICAN website

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

No. It is a poitically unafiliated website. I have caught some criticism for my early coverage of the republican candidates for president. There is a lot of attention on that race because they are determining who will take on Obama in the election. This entire conversation is centered well right of center. That does not mean that I believe in these things. I personally lean pretty far to the left. My political leanings, however, will not drive the direction of the organization. Wherever the majority is we will support their cause. I hope that I will be lobbying for issues that I believe in and that the left will step up and make their voice heard. It is possible that in the attempt to be neutral I have favored coverage of the side that I do not agree with. I hope you give the site and its concepts another look.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

No, you were had LobbyDemocracy.

And here's you lame rationale:

It is possible that in the attempt to be neutral I have favored coverage of the side that I do not agree with.

And here's your hope that our opinions can be swayed to the Republican encampment:

I hope you give the site and its concepts another look.



...........................To which, I say, NO THANKS

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I respect that right and wish you success in your endevours as you move forward.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

We Are The 99%

Expect US !

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I am trying to actually determine what the 99% supports.

[-] 1 points by UPonLocal (309) 2 years ago

Lobbying is begging a bunch of Elitists for change, why not go Direct Democracy online voting, build up replacement government from non politicians...and take over?

People are working on just that....

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

That, however, needs a constitutional amendment. Getting a constitutional amendment passed needs political muscle, and political muscle is what I am offering. I am not choosing or restricting the goals. All I am doing is providing a pathway.

[-] 1 points by UPonLocal (309) 2 years ago

or the majority of people banging on the congress door telling them that a more responsible group is formed and will make that amendment on first sitting......

because that is the type muscle that millions of hungry Amercans are fast developing....

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I am not trying to take away from the strength of Occupy. I understand that the path I am choosing is structurally different than the one that Occupy is. My hope is that my more moderate approach to the problem will make the process something that everyone can and will participate in.

[-] 1 points by UPonLocal (309) 2 years ago

I for one, advocate a two pronged approach, yours and a Direct Democracy effort

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Thank you. I am not all for a Direct Democracy, but as I have said that doesn't matter. I am completely prepared to throw the full weight of the organization behind whatever issues the majority supports.

[-] 1 points by UPonLocal (309) 2 years ago

same...how to collect a "Majority" takes us right back to the Direct Democracy issue...

meaning, action via your system lobbying to elected, or same effect via an enhanced voting system...it all becomes a Direct Democracy...

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I think that Lobby Democracy is really a Direct Democracy light. It provides a voting system and enables the members to have their opinions heard by their government. I think this system by itself will help drive change, but if it does not the organization that will already be established can be used to fight for more dramatic change.

[-] 1 points by UPonLocal (309) 2 years ago

without one, we will get riot

[-] 1 points by UPonLocal (309) 2 years ago

all they need is an online voting system to get organized on, form shadow government...and displace the old crew of corrupt elitists

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I believe that lobby democracy will enable us to do these things from within the structure that already exists.

[-] 1 points by UPonLocal (309) 2 years ago

on that note, can Lobby Democracy help this group get it's Act passed? http://ni4d.us/

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Lobby Democracy will support whatever its members support. I think with enough numbers there are nearly no limits on what we can achieve.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Not that I don't trust you lobbydemocracy, because I do love your post. We should all take part in anything like this that will move our (THE PEOPLE) agendas forward. But we can not just depend on one source of input. Please everyone check out all that can move us forward and use everything you find that is positive and good.

Create sign and send petitions. The more inputs we have the better.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/create-sign-and-send-petitions/

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I think that we can rely on one source of input, if that source of input is the voice of the majority. We wil be gathering the voices of the many and bringing them together to influence legislation in a way that was never before possible.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

The fundamental problem is that we cant even begin to compete with their billions. They have set in place, via ronnie and georgie, a financial system that has sucked us dry. Check out soylent green - I'm not sure if we are there - but we are very close.
OR
We need to pick an issue that is simple - that is popular - how about an issue
that 83% of Americans agree on -
that 56% of TP agree on -
that will bring together the people in OWS with the people outside of OWS

Our only goal should be to pass a constitutional amendment to counter Supreme Court decisions Citizens United (2010) & Buckley v. Valeo (1976), that enable unlimited amounts of anonymous money to flood into our political system.
It will be as short and concise as possible, a legally constructed
“corporations and other organizations are not a persons and have no personhood rights”
and
“money is not free speech”.

We don’t have to explain or persuade people to accept our position – we have to persuade them to ACT based on their own position. Pursuing this goal will prove to the world that we, at OWS, are a serious realistic Movement, with serious realistic goals. Achieving this goal will make virtually every other goal – from jobs, to taxes, to infrastructure , to Medicare – much easier to achieve –
by disarming our greatest enemy – GREED.


THE SUCCESS STORY OF THE AMENDING PROCESS The Prohibition movement started as a disjointed effort by conservative teetotalers who thought the consumption of alcohol was immoral. They ransacked saloons and garnered press coverage here and there for a few years. Then they began to gain support from the liberals because many considered alcohol partially responsible for spousal and child abuse, among other social ills. This odd alliance, after many years of failing to influence change consistently across jurisdictions, decided to concentrate on one issue nationally—a constitutional amendment. They pressured all politicians on every level to sign a pledge to support the amendment. Any who did not, they defeated easily at the ballot box since they controlled a huge number of liberal, and conservative and independent swing votes in every election. By being a single-issue constituency attacking from all sides of the political spectrum, they very quickly amassed enough votes (2/3) to pass the amendment in Congress. And, using the same tactics, within just 17 months they were successful in getting ¾ of the state legislatures to ratify the constitutional amendment into law. (Other amendments were ratified even faster: Eight—the 7th, 12th, 13th, 15th, 17th, 20th, 21st and 26th—took less than a year. The 26th, granting 18-year-olds the right to vote, took just three months and eight days.)


If they could tie the left and right into a success -
WHY CAN'T WE??????????


I feel that we should stay with this simple text to overturn CU:
”corporations are not people” and “money is not free speech”
for four simple reasons and one – not so simple:
1
83% of Americans have already opposed CU in the ABC/Washington post poll and the above
IS THEIR POSITION ALREADY.
2
We don’t have to work to convince people on the validity of our position.
3
Simple is almost always better.
4
This simple Amendment is REQUIRED to overturn CU.
And all other electoral reform can be passed through the normal legislative process.

5
OWS and these pages are chock full of ( mostly ) excellent ideas to improve our country. All of them have strong advocates – and some have strong opposition. None of them has been “pre-approved” by 83% of Americans ! Pursuing this goal – without additional specifics is exactly what Americans want. What do we want? Look at that almost endless list of demands – goals - aims.
Tax the rich. End the Fed. Jobs for all, Medicare for all. So easy to state. Can you imagine how hard it would be to formulate a “sales pitch” for any of these to convince your Republican friends to vote for any of them.
83% of Americans have ALREADY “voted” against CU. And 76% of the Rs did too.
All we have to do ask Americans is to pressure their representatives – by letters - emails – petitions.

Wanna take your family on vacation? Convince the 7 year old and the 10 year old to go to Mt Rushmore. Then try to convince them to go to Disneyland.
Prioritizing this goal will introduce us to the world – not as a bunch of hippie radical anarchist socialist commie rabblerousers – but as a responsible, mature movement that is fighting for what America wants.


I feel that using the tactics of the NRA, the AARP an the TP – who all represent a minority – who have successfully used their voting power to achieve their minority goals - plus the Prohibition Amendment tactics – bringing all sides together - is a straight path for us to success that cannot fail to enable us to create and complete one MAJORITY task.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

The goal of the organization is to find issues that have broad based support. I think that there is a great deal of support for revamping the way that money works in politics, including but not limited to a constitutional amendment. The great thing about the organization is that we will find other issues along the way that have broad support and be able to focus on them. With the increase in technology we will be able to do serious polling and convey that data to our elected leaders. I hope you will consider our organization as a means to achieve your agenda.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Just another scheme to deflect and undermine the power, independence and militance of the occupy movement.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

RedJazz43, you the nail on the head. Anyone who looks at that web site can clearly see what's happening. This whole thread is one big scam.

Good Eye Red!!!


[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Apparently you are not open to conversation in relation to your objections. I am sorry you do not see the organization as I intend it.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Good Money ?

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I'm sorry but I do not understand.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I think it is a scheme to make sure that the occupy movemnet actually foments significant change. The organization has been in development for a year. I think that it will enable the majority to have a real voice on Capitol Hill. I hope you keep in touch with the organization and watch what we can achieve.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Fine, but I'll put my money on OWS which strikes me at least of having the potential to be a real opposition movement. I don't see anything else coming up with a document as stirring as the Declaration of the Occupation. The worst thing that could possibly befall the Occupation movement would be for it to be hoodwinked by some trivial reformist scheme. We have much, much bigger fish to fry.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I do not think that my organization either steps on the toes of Occupy or limits the scope of the solutions. Many of the solutions that occupy is considering involve constitutional amendments. These need a great deal of political backing to get off the ground and I hope to be able to provide that support. We are not saying that we need to focus on small steps. I am simply trying to provide a framework that wil help us better understand what the 99% actually stands behind and focus our efforts in those directions.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

So far as I can see the Occupy movement is not seeking any solutions to anything. The Declaration of the Occupation does have a long list of greivances, and perhaps solutions can be implied from those greivances, but perhaps not. I think there is great strength in that Declaration and in the grievances it deliniates. It is a big vessel into which any number of different contents can be poured, which is the source of its great strength.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Except that if it does not find direction, it will not be able to achieve any goals. I think that there is a great deal of good coming from the occupy movement. It has caused questions to be asked that have gone unasked. It has conversations to occur that would not have occured. I am not trying to take anything away from the movement or replace it in any way. I am trying to create a structure that will provide the framework to change the system.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

The title of the movement is Occupy Wall Street. That's certainly a goal and it hasn't achieved that yet. Time enough to consider subsequent goals once it actually achieves its primary goal. I don't think that's a metaphor and I don't the the initiators of the movement saw it as a metaphor either.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I think you are creating a false dichotomy between either OWS or Lobby Democracy. We are sister organizations. Very different in our approach, but directed towards the same goal. The majorities voice has been oppresed and overrun. This is unacceptable and needs to be attended to.

I am sorry but I need to go to bed. Our official launch is tomorrow and I have a big day ahead of me. Need to get some rest. I would love to continue the conversation and will be back on tomorrow to write you back. I wish you the best of luck in your endevours and hope that you will do the same for mine.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I'm not at all certain that the GA would accept a lobbying outfit, no matter how progressive, as a sister organization. I'm also not sure that they share the same goals. OWS is, after all, a rather uneasy alliance of reformers and revolutionaries, and I don't see anything especially revolutionary in lobbying.

[-] 2 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

It isn't revolutionary. It is a more moderate tactic to achieving the same goals. I would hope that it is the goals that are important and not the tactic.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Much of the rhetoric of OWS is revolutionary. It's not at all clear to me whether that is genuine or mere hyperbole, but if it is genuine then there is necessarily a tension between it and more moderate elements in the movement. And it's not just about tactics, but about one's vision of a future society. Is it merely about a tweeked and perhaps amended Constitution or is it about something profoundly different?

[-] 2 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I think that we will have a hard time convincing the country that going through a full scale revolution is the solution. I may be wrong about that, but I think the majority is interested in change from within the structures that we have. I am not saying that Lobby Democracy is the same as the OWS. Clearly they are different approaches. I think they both attend to the same core issues though, and we need to be open to various approaches to reaching our goals.

[-] 1 points by entrepreneur (69) 2 years ago

is this registered as 501 3(c) or other non-profit corp? can you publish what is legal status of lobby democracy. Can you allow local chapters of this lobby. as such you get nation wide representation. These local chapters could be the various occupy missions in various cities around the united states of america.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Lobby Democracy is a LLC. Although I am interested in the impact of local government, it will be a while before we have the numbers to be able to do so. You need large enough numbers in each state to have statistical significance. I hope to expand in this direction, but we are not ready to do so yet.

[-] 1 points by nsd72 (31) 2 years ago

Did anyone see THAT letter from a Wall Street worker? Here's my response: http://www.tocamu.com/?page_id=5665

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

5 members and counting. Help us make your perspectives heard.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

We are now up and running. Membership is available. Come let us know what you think,

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

sounds very interesting, good luck

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

sounds very interesting, good luck

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Thank you. We are collecting ideas on what issues to examine as we open up. Eventually the issues we examine will be brought up by the membership, but since we are not open for another 7 days, we are looking for ideas on what issues are important to the majority. Please let me know if you have anything you would like considered. We look forward to hearing from you.

[-] 1 points by ConcernedCitizen42 (23) 2 years ago

worth a try, best of luck to you!

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Thank you. I hope to hear from you on the site. We are collecting ideas for what issues we should examine first. Please let me know if you have any ideas.

[-] 1 points by Christy (62) 2 years ago

Sounds good to me. I will check it out. Can you post back- if there have been any changes?

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

We are now up and running Christy. Membership is open and we have begun surveying our new members to determine the direction of the organization.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

There will be a bunch of changes in the next week. We will be rolling out the next generation of the site on Tuesday or Wednesday. On Sunday we will be opening up for membership. If you want to stay abreast of everything that changes on the site you can sign up for our email list by contacting us through the contact form on the site.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

9 days until full launch. Let us know what you think.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

We need ideas for issues to take up when we launch. We will offer a list of possibilities to our membership and they will select them. Eventually members will create the list as well, but to start we need some ideas to throw out there. Who has something they want addressed?

[-] 1 points by abmebratu (349) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

I say we muzzle the illegitimate influence of big business while boosting the people's voice.... Simultaneously. If the banks and corporations had their way they would have completely shut us down. In fact they are working day and night to muzzle the voice of the American people. I don't understand why we should be more lenient with them than they are we us.....The age of forgiveness and side observation is over. Action is needed now.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I am completely for the muzzling of illegitimate influence. My desire to help boost the people's voice does not mean that I am not for lobbying and campaign finance reform. I do think it is important as those attempts move forward that we help the voice of the people step into the void that we are creating.
My work it to help boost the voice of the American people. I hope that others will take up the torch of continuing to reform the way that money works on Capitol Hill. Together, may we be successful in changing who has influence over our elected leaders.

[-] 1 points by Korsen (53) from Fairfield, CT 2 years ago

See here: http://www.themultitude.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=150&sid=87f29bff1f8b56b3555aabbadf16bed1

And here: http://www.themultitude.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=170&sid=87f29bff1f8b56b3555aabbadf16bed1

These are the two main ideas that will distribute political and economic power across the nation quickly and with little strain on the country or the budget while removing Trillions in unnecessary expenditures without changing the basic operation of the country.

@LobbyDemocracy - I think these are the immediate implementation solutions you're looking for. Granted they will be tweaked should they be accepted but the basis is there.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I would welcome your ideas as part of the dialogue at Lobby Democracy. I am not proposing a particular solution. I am proposing a means to coming to agreement on solutions.

[-] 1 points by CAFR1 (7) from St Johns, AZ 2 years ago

Lobby Democracy:

Per who "Owns it all" and why things are as they are, please comment on article - http://occupywallst.org/forum/walter-burien-speaking-to-the-health-and-freedom-c/

Thanks,

Walter Burien - CAFR1.com

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

It seems to be that we would be hard pressed to make enough off of investment income to replace the entire tax code. The fact that we are starting with a $14 trillion dollar deficit to back our investment makes the argument even harder to believe.

Taxes are a necessity. They fund communal projects. We should just see them like any other purchase we make over the course of the year.

[-] 1 points by KeepUpTheGoodWork (8) 2 years ago

Another thought is only allow lobbying on the web. The lobbiest put forth their positions on the web for all to read. The staff of the congress can only communicate with the lobbiests via email. The emails to need to be posted on the web. When members of congress meet with the lobbiests it must be video taped and posted on the web. No private conversations or meetings allowed.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

That structure would be very hard to enforce. I think all ideas should be considered, and I understand your desire to limit the influence of the lobbying industry; however, I think it is also important to find a way to elevate the voice of the majority.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Lobbyists are the foot soldiers. Without supply lines they are just part of the unemployed. Get the Money Out.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

In addition to getting the money out, we need a way to convey the perspectives of the American people to our elected leaders. Even without the money there will be an information war. That is a war that we are currently losing, and I plan on changing that situation.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Agreed. I have gone to the Multitude.http://www.themultitude.org

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I am over there as well.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

The filter seems to work there. I am only responding to comments on my previous posts here. There are a couple of people there who must type like blazes who are dominating the conversation on several threads. Reminded me that I should limit my own posts. Ha!

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

The structure of that site is better, but there are still many more people here than there are over there. Trying to use both for now.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I like the pop ups here when someone comments on my posts.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I do as well. They are really handy.

[-] 1 points by JoeThePatriot (153) 2 years ago

That sounds like an idea that could work. I'll check out the site

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Thanks Joe. Let me know what you think.

[-] 1 points by JoeThePatriot (153) 2 years ago

It looks like an asset up front.

but today their are so many people trying to deceive us I am not in a hurry to endorse something

I'll check it out for a while and pass it on to friends if I seems good

Thanks for your effort

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

My pleasure. I understand your hesitance. Once the organization is more established it will be easier to assure people that the organization is well intentioned. Our early members will be taking a leap of faith both in us, and in the integrity of the system. I hope that you will keep track of us as we move forward and will consider supporting what we are trying to achieve. If you have questions at any time please feel free to contact us through the web site.

[-] 1 points by littleg (452) 2 years ago

So you are a lobbyist for democracy. How much do you charge per hour of lobbying ?

Wait ! We don't need lobbyists :)

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

It is $20 a year, and given the results that we are getting, I think we might just need lobbyists for democracy.

[-] 1 points by Space (79) 2 years ago

We need to restore the republic, where every voice us counts. And we find ways to compromise so everyone is on board. 65% seems like mob rule. Sort of the kind of thing that has gotten us into trouble.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Searching for consensus in a 300 million person society seems to be an unrealistic goal.

[-] 1 points by Space (79) 2 years ago

The 35% need to be represented.

Your idea does not sound like something I would participate in, at least not if it was intended to be a representation of "the people". Now if this was a PAC for people who are generally like minded and they just need to work out details to consolidate their "voice" on issues, then I would be part of that.

The problem with the current system is that things seem to only be consolidated into only two voices, dem and rep. We have allot more than 2 points of view out there, and they are not being herd.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

It is designed to figure out what issues we can agree on across the spectrum. The site is not affiliated with either party.

[-] 1 points by tympan55 (124) 2 years ago

The corrupting influence of money is endemic. We live in a culture where human worth has been reduced to a numerical equivalent, and those who accumulate a pile at the expense of others are afflicted by spasms of entitlement. America prides itself on its, "Puritan work ethic," an anomaly that remunerates material redemption at the expense of spiritual communion. There is an old proverb that says if you kill a man's brother, he will eventually get over it, but if you steal a man's money, he will remember it till the day he dies.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I understand your frustration. I am trying to move out of the frustration phase and into an active solution.

[-] 1 points by Matthias (1019) 2 years ago

I just thought that I help you bring up your post to the top again.

[-] 1 points by Beaver1 (2) from Sarasota, FL 2 years ago

I think that this idea has some merit, but the fundamental challenge here is that our elected officials are responsive to only those who fund their campaigns (corporations and lobbyists for wealthy organizations) because they are interested in getting re-elected not making a government that works for the people. A lobby for the people would have to compete with the others for funding and their pockets are a lot deeper than ours. I think a solution would have to involve public funding of campaigns and re-restricting the role that big business can have in financing campaigns. Then we are on the way to stiking at the root of this most major corruption in our system of government.

[-] 1 points by Beaver1 (2) from Sarasota, FL 2 years ago

I think that this idea has some merit, but the fundamental challenge here is that our elected officials are responsive to only those who fund their campaigns (corporations and lobbyists for wealthy organizations) because they are interested in getting re-elected not making a government that works for the people. A lobby for the people would have to compete with the others for funding and their pockets are a lot deeper than ours. I think a solution would have to involve public funding of campaigns and re-restricting the role that big business can have in financing campaigns. Then we are on the way to stiking at the root of this most major corruption in our system of government.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

As I have said to others here, I am all for a re-evaluation of how money in politics works. But, your point actually feed into mine. It is true that much of our elected leaders time has been spent on getting re-elected. I would also agree that fundraising has become a major part of that. What I propose is that if they had the support of the majority of their constituents they would not need to buy their votes through advertising. The money is only there to influence the votes. If you hold a big enough voting block you can influence the direction of legislation without any money.

[-] 1 points by Matthias (1019) 2 years ago

Make Christ your ruler and the power of money will stop there. Jesus used force only once in the Bible when He was on earth. As many of you know when He chased the money changers out. BUT IS WAS INSIDE THE TEMPLE: So you need to go there FIRST.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

So you are saying we need to invite the bankers to church so they can get their whoopin?

[-] 1 points by Matthias (1019) 2 years ago

They can stay where they are. The greed is their whoopin because it will keep them for judgement day. Whether American churches are a good idea? To my experience there are a lot of people who are blinded when it comes to Jesus and His agenda for politics. You need to go down to pray and start having faith, turn from a godless life and do what is right and help from above will come. I am German and live in Germany. About 30 years ago a handful of Christian met in a church in East Germany to pray for 99% who were hold captive by the communist. Ten years later demonstrations started at this very church on the very same day they have been praying and the communist system fell. Peacefully within a couple of weeks. You can read on Wikipedia. I have met a Christian of this church.

Do you know the story of Israel being enslaved in Egypt and God got them out. This is history, too. You cannot make that up when it comes to a whole people.

The Gospel is the good news of a Kingdom not a church or denomination. It has been forgotten. But the time will come when nations will come to Jesus. Maybe it starts with you.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I respect your beliefs and your right to hold them. I was raised Christian and am very familiar with the Bible and its teachings. The US, however, is a country founded on a division of church and state. The movement needs to include people of all faiths and lack of faiths.

[-] 1 points by Matthias (1019) 2 years ago

Another note. Have you ever noticed what the system was of your Founding Fathers.They got rid of the taxes from the British King and kept slavery taxing them even their very lifes and children. Is is the spirit of the system today. You have a systematic problem. It has never been different.

I know that children in the USA are indoctrinated that the Founding Fathers were good and wise and freedom loving people. But don't you agree that from an outside perspective it looks like hypocrecy reaching heaven when they were in fact keeping slavery. The "evil" British got rid of slavery BEFORE the US and without a bloody war. In Britain there were people like John Wesley who were able to set up a new denomination. And John Wesley, a time witness of the American uproar said it plainly. It is about taxes. Just watch a Republican presidential debate and you hear the same chants to this day. The pride in Amerca has blinded you. Look to Canada. Are they an oppressed people? Or is not the center of modern western oppression WallSt. But WallST grew on the system that was set up by slave drivers and their partners.

I do not advocate what the "Founding Fathers" did. Take you gun and kill the authorities. But that was exactly what they did. The Bible clearly teaches that you must obey the authorities. And as I said "evil Britain" got rid of slavery before the USA. So what country was more oppressive?

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

Even Jesus drove the money changers from the temple.

[-] 1 points by Matthias (1019) 2 years ago

East Germany was very unchristian. Most people did not believe. But the handful who had faith brought the downfall. Martin Luther King was a believer and I guess not all who followed Him were. But I bed he prayed.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

No offense, but I am trying to start a political movement that you cannot be part of because you live outside the country. Secondarily this is not a religious forum. I wish you the best.

[-] 1 points by Matthias (1019) 2 years ago

May teh Lord bless you. I wish you the best too.

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Playing their game is not the answer, especially when they have all the money.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Not playing their game just means that we lose by default.

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

The Egyptians didn't lose. The Tunisians didn't lose. I'm new here. What is permalink?

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I don't think the majority of our society has full scale revolution in mind. The system may be broken, but it involves more freedom than any other society on the planet and that should be embraced. I believe that we can change the system from the inside. If you do not concur I respect that.

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Right now it's still possible to change the system from the inside. Your way is slow and uncertain. If legislation worked we wouldn't have had a market crash. You need to think bigger...like constitutional amendment.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Which has to first pass both houses of congress.

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

It's been done before.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

It has, but my point was that they system that I am trying to put in place could help with that process. I do not see Lobby Democracy as a solution to the issues. It is a tool to help get things done. These things could include constitutional amendments which would attend to campaign finance and lobbying reform.

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Didn't mean to say your idea was a bad one. Right now my only lobbyist is OWS (how sad is that?). I think everything helps when you're talking reform. I once suggested to moveon that all lobbying be done by email with 100% transparency.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

There is a logistical problem on the email side. You can only contact a rep by email if you are part of their district. You need to buy a special service that enables you to contact them if you are outside their district. Something that I find disturbing, but Lobby Democracy will have to do.

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Considering what they're spending on lobbyists, I think they can afford a special service.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I agree. It is just insane that the system involves buying access.

[-] 1 points by revolutionaryfarmer (10) 2 years ago

Permaculture based lifestyle. Read about it. Learn it. Justice will come when we live like a community in all ways with all of the worlds entities. This is not just about economics. It is about balance.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I think it is better to keep the focus more narrow than that while trying to affect change. Telling people they need a whole new approach to life might be a little overbearing. I am glad it is working for you though.

[-] 1 points by revolutionaryfarmer (10) 2 years ago

Focus on what. Asking rich people to help? We have to build the world we want. This is a chance to discuss all of our options. Not focus in on one political message. We have to replace the system now not just say it does not work. Not just ask for a little more. The planet can not handle our demands anymore. We must change.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I understand that we must change. We need a path to help create that change though. The structure that I am creating is one that will help push and direct change. It does not limit the scope of the change in the long run, just gives us a starting point to help begin the process.

[-] 1 points by hbyte (24) 2 years ago

Couldnt the use of the internet as a mechanism of bringing people together to express a view point be used as a more powerful form of lobbying.

All it would take is the right sort of questions accessable to the most number's of people.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

We are attempting to do just that. We are gathering people up on the web and finding out what they all think of various issues.

[-] 1 points by hbyte (24) 2 years ago

We have become obsessed with competition in global markets perhaps this is not the generative process to realizing our futures

the system has become a habit rather than a liberating mechanism - as perhaps it should be

we become bogged down in socialism and capitalism which by now should be regarded redundant idea's

[-] 1 points by hbyte (24) 2 years ago

The machine based system is wrong we have become organic mechanism to a machine that goes no where.

How about somehting like the village a recreation of an innocent past on some distant future world.

[-] 1 points by hbyte (24) 2 years ago

Also have to stop them from bulldozing houses

[-] 1 points by Christy (62) 2 years ago

I agree with you. Lobbyists can influence decisions.
Since we can't think of anything else, I guess this is the only way.
I will definitely bring up student loans (especially private)- we need relief.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Thank you for your support and I hope that the organization will examine the way that education is funded.

[-] 1 points by rabidmoderate (13) from Lawrence, KS 2 years ago

This is a complex issue.

To address the need for lobbying: The emergent needs of a federalized government require a large amount of education/information. Lobbyists simple tell politicians what they think the truth of the matter is or what they want the politician to think the truth is. If you write your congressperson a letter, you are a lobbyist. If you donate to a campaign, you are a lobbyist. If lobbying is made illegal, then democracy can't function. If money is the main factor that determines how politicians vote, then democracy has been undermined. This is the concern here. The only way to really limit the effects of lobbying would be to vastly limit the power of the federal government, which is the libertarian solution. Even limiting money is a superficial band-aid, because the informational arms race will never stop.

To address the conundrum: Lobby Democracy sounds like a great idea, but there are some major problems with poling your membership in order to determine majority opinion. You might get a representative sample of the nation, but that is not likely to happen and not necessarily a desirable thing for many reason:

1) Obviously, you are recruiting people who are part of a particular movement and this biases your sample from the start. With enough support, you could reach a near representative sample, but you are also media restricted, so this is an inherent bias that will never go away.

2) Even if you start with an unbiased sample, you are going to alienate the minority and they will leave the group because their opinions are not being represented by your group. Opinions often come in groups (not as individual independent thoughts) and so someone who is in the minority on one issue is more likely to be in the minority in the next issue also. When these people leave, it will be easier and easier to reach a 65% opinion and you will vastly over-estimate the amount of support for a particular idea. INDEPENDENT POLLING from multiple sources with scientific sampling is the only known way to approach a true estimation of the percentage of people with a particular opinion.

3) Your models assumes our society is homogenized. It is not. That is why we have a bicameral, representative democracy that is geographically split, because we assume that geographic location is correlated with political opinion (and it is to a certain degree, and defining voting lines is a contentious subject for that very reason) and that a "State" is a voting body as well as a "District."

4) The majority is not always right and often rarely informed on the particulars of complex issues. Often particular lobbying groups are far more informed about a particular subject than is the population as a whole, and so assuming that majority knows what they are talking about on every issue is a grand and dangerous assumption.

I support the idea of your site as an analytic exercise, but I don't think it has practical application as a expressly political entity.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Thank you for taking the time to express such a full response,. I understand that there are statistical sampling issues with the system that I propose. The organization will never reflect true statistical sampling of the American people. True statistical sampling of the American people are also not reflected in elections though. Only a segment of our society votes. Statistically, that segment does not reflect the entire population.

I understand the limitations of the polling system that I will be using with self selected membership, but it is not wholly different than the self selection that occurs on election day. We are taking a sample of people who are taking the time and money to be involved in the political process. When it comes to politicians, it is not important to them that we reflect the interests of everyone. It is important to them that we are a population that votes and is active in politics.

I understand that there will be issues with people feeling their ideas are not being represented. Indeed, that will be more than a belief. If their ideas are in the 20% minority, we will not be representing them on that issue. I am also aware that this will apply to my own personal beliefs. I may often end up petitioning the government on issues that I personally do not believe in. I for one though, am comfortable living in a democracy and understand that I cannot always have it my way. Although I think some of those minority opinions will leave the organization, I think others will spend time and energy trying to keep the majority opinion from hitting 65%. They will gather like minded friends to sign up and fight for their perspective. Likewise the people in the majority opinion of an issue sitting at 63% will try to gather supporters to push it over the threshold.

Sometimes those minority opinions will lose that fight and the organization will represent something that they do not believe in. Although I understand the frustration in that, I would rather have my ideas passed over for the interests of the majority than have them passed over in favor of whatever the pharmaceutical industry thinks should be done.

Thank you again for your time in responding to my idea. I hope that it can grow and develop. I hope that it can avoid some of the pitfalls that you exposited. All the best to you and I hope you will consider being involved in our organization as we move forward.

[-] 1 points by rabidmoderate (13) from Lawrence, KS 2 years ago

I like that you are daring to do something. I can tell that you are a diplomatic person and hopefully you can bring a diverse group of people together, whether or not your organization achieves majority opinion or not. That opinion, after all, is subject to change.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

We are now up and running rabid moderate. Would love if you could stop by and let us know what you think of the new framework.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Even if it does not represent the interest of the full majority it will represent the interests of our membership. I hope they have good ideas.

[-] 1 points by littleg (452) 2 years ago

I don't support any organization which asks for mandatory membership fee ! I only support "Pay what you can" organizations only.

There are so many Not for profit organizations out there, which exists solely for the purpose of enjoying other people's money.

Look at Newt Gingrich ! That crook knows he won't win, but he is collecting donations and spending it lavishly upon himself.

Shameless guy and dumb Republican donors !!

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

There are problems with designing this organization as a pay what you can. If some people are paying more than others it would give the appearance of the organization being bought out the same way that Capitol Hill is. I understand that there is a small segment of our society for which $20 is a serious financial commitment. I regret placing that burden on them, but think the system as a whole is an equitable universal sharing of the costs of the organization.

[-] 1 points by littleg (452) 2 years ago

If you make your donor's names public, I don't understand how somebody contributing more (while being publicly known) would give the appearance of the organization being bought in any way.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

It would leave open the possibility that those people somehow had more say in the organization. Although that would not be the case, it would leave the question hanging in the air.

[-] 1 points by littleg (452) 2 years ago

Sorry, I don't buy it.

[-] 1 points by Kman (171) 2 years ago

Great Idea. I will support it.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Thank you. If you are interested in keeping up to date on the growth of the organization, please feel free to contact us through the contact us page on our website. We can put you on our email list, and let you know how we are doing as we move forward.

[-] 1 points by Kman (171) 2 years ago

Will do

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

We are open and accepting membership Kman. Let me know if you have any questions.

[-] 1 points by misunderstood101 (68) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

trying to get some of that $3.5billion for yourself....that's the american spirit.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

The goal is to replace the influence of money with the influence of the majority. If you think this organization is going to be a gold mine for me you are sorely mistaken. The $20 membership fee is there to cover very real costs. Although we will not be donating to out elected leaders there are costs associated with running and maintaining an organization, and since I am not wealthy myself, the money needs to come from somewhere. Accepting donations of differing amounts would leave the impression that we were selling out to the highest bidder. The method that we are using is a democratic sharing of the costs.

[-] 1 points by misunderstood101 (68) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

let people volunteer with themselves and bring anything that's needed to fulfill certain goal...that should take money out and still maintain the goal.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

There are certain services that need to be provided that will not be volunteered. For instance, the US House of Representatives and Senate have implemented a system in which their email addresses are no longer publicly available. You must use a web form to contact them, and you can only do so if you are from their district. It restricts conversation, keeping the average citizen out and strengthening the voice of the lobbyists. There are companies that provide a service that circumvents part of this system and enables you to contact our elected leaders. It is sick and disgusting that this is what the system has been reduced to, but it is the way things are. We as an organization are going to subscribe to the service so that we can make the perspectives of our members heard. The service costs $5000, and the company that runs it has no need or desire to volunteer it. We need a base of capital to be able to finance projects like this, and I think our system is a fair, equitable way to share that cost.

[-] 1 points by misunderstood101 (68) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

the almighty dollar will always be Omnipotent-present in our lives if we like it or not..thats what scares me...just do a good job.. will say in touch.THX

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Thank you as well. I am doing my damnedest. Unfortunately, some of my tasks for the organization are outside the bounds of my skill set. I hope that we can get to the place as an organization that I can bring some more help in and increase the effectiveness of the organization.

[-] 1 points by michael4ows (224) from Mountain View, CA 2 years ago

I like the gist of this!

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Our new site is up and we are open for membership michael. Check it out and let us know what you think.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I am aware that it has a long way to go, but we will grow as our membership grows. I wish that I had the money to put the organization up in full force before we open, but due to the fact that I am not in the 1% we are going to need to scale up the organization as membership grows. Thank you for your support.

[-] 1 points by Bernie (117) 2 years ago

I read your site. While I appreciate what you are trying to do, it will not solve the problem. The problem is money in politics. As long as our Representatives get money to run their campaigns from individuals, corporations or unions the system will be corrupt. Get to the problem. https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/

[-] 1 points by gtyper (477) from San Antonio, TX 2 years ago

I agree with Bernie.

Money needs to be removed. As long as we are buying the process the process is corrupt.

Politicians should be doing the right thing for the country -- not the right thing for their wallet and/or personal agenda.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

We are not buying the process. We are grouping together for the sake of creating a voting block. The organization will not be making campaign contributions or otherwise be attempting to buy our government back. It will be letting our elected leaders know what issues we stand together on, and informing them that if they are not responsive to the requests of the majority that they will be voted out of office and replaced.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I understand that argument and don't disagree that the money will always have a bastardizing influence. Unfortunately, all attempts at getting the money out of politics have failed. Legislation to change the system has gotten little support, and when it has passed it has been struck down by the Supreme Court. I am not saying that we should stop fighting that fight because we have not succeeded thus far, but I am proposing that we also approach the problem from a different direction. We have a tool at our disposal that the lobbyists for big business and special interests do not. We have the votes.

All of the money related to campaigning is there to help our elected officials buy votes. If we can put together a large enough voting block we will have the power influence the government even without the money.

[-] 1 points by AmericanArtist (53) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Wiki Occupy Wall Street

http://www.wikioccupywallst.org

United We Stand ! Let's Build it Together ! Yes we are Us . . .

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I'm sorry but there doesn't seem to be any information on the web page you provided. I am also trying to help bring everyone together to unify around a platform. I think you might be interested in the process.

[-] 1 points by AmericanArtist (53) from New York, NY 2 years ago

The idea of a wiki is that everybody contributes to the web page. This is a new and organic process that is just beginning. Help to spread the word, and post your photos and experiences.

http://www.wikioccupy.org

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

A toothpick in a gunfight comes to mind. All we have to do is come up with say $3.75 billion and 13,000 lobbyists on our payroll and then we can win maybe half of the battles.

Ooops The corporations also have the threat of moving even more jobs out of the country, and other non economic threats, not the least of which are sex tapes and other blackmail.

Soooo, maybe we aren't quite there yet. Good sincere effort to create a new business venture. Good luck with it.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Thank you. I think that the voters have more power than you give the system credit for. The system does not inherently disempower the voter. We have failed to step up and act. I am hoping that the ease of technology will help to change that.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Never has the disenfranchised had the ability to coordinate within an order of magnitude of the speed of those in control. We can now. The only way to stop it is to shut down the net and at that point it is a whole new ballgame. Don't see this going there. Sure the voters have power, more than they realize but they have been convinced to vote against their own self interests. There at least 25% that will still do that. The TEA party had many of the same issues to start. Then they got taken over and are busy blocking even good government that makes their situation worse along with ours. We need to turn them around. Almost impossible.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Almost impossible and impossible are not the same thing.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Neutral will be enough.

[-] 1 points by dingalingy (54) 2 years ago

we are difinitely a lobby. when I worked with ACT UP they would protest in the streets, but there would be representatives in suits inside presenting necessary documentation to the person with the most influence over the situation. We can use this technique repeatedly to solve multiple problems, so we don't have to narrow the fight. We also had people phoning officials etc .. sorry about the grammat i have been so much on chat

spelling is a lost ant

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

"Spelling is a lost ant" might be the funniest thing that I have read all day. I am just trying to pull the majority together so that we can bring their voice forward. Rather than forming an organization for a single issue, we are forming for a structure.

[-] 1 points by dingalingy (54) 2 years ago

it is amazing how that structure can incorporate all good ideas, and at the sacrifice of none of them. any solution that is either or is not a solution. a solution incorporates all

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

We are now up and running dingalingy. Would love it if you will stop by and check out the new structure and let us know what you think.

[-] 1 points by lies (16) 2 years ago

you will need a check and balance for yourself, they will offer you the dirty money to deceive the movement. they master the act of "movement" pollution. otherwise, i like it! what progress or structure do you have?

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I understand that I am going to have to be very open about the finances of the organization to make it clear where the power is. We will be opening up for membership on November 6th, one year out from the presidential election. We have the website up now, but there will be a new roll out for launch.

[-] 1 points by lies (16) 2 years ago

very good...

[-] 1 points by iloveobamasmama (-5) 2 years ago

I've got it!

I've got it!

I've got it!

This is the solution!

We the people who have decided to occupy Wall St, should all demonstrate by giving our lives for the cause. If we commit mass suicide we will all be remembered as martyrs for the cause! WE NEED TO COMMIT MASS SUICIDE!

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Guess I shouldn't count on your membership then.

[-] 1 points by lies (16) 2 years ago

lmao...excellent response! we have already committed suicide for many years, now it is time for a ressurection!

[-] 1 points by iloveobamasmama (-5) 2 years ago

Only ONE MAN in history was able to accomplish a resurrection. Unless your initials are J.C. your chances of resurrecting are very very(!) slim.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

not a solution. we must end lobbying period. until we do the system we have is just legalized bribery.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

There are both logistical and ethical problems with that approach. I know that it sounds ridiculous to say there are ethical problems with removing the money from DC, but it is hard to do without infringing on people's freedom of speech. Many attempts have been made and I support the attempts to clean the money out of politics. Unfortunately, those attempts have not been successful and the money has continued to grow. This election will have more money involved than ever because of the Supreme Court opening up unlimited outside spending.

If you can get the money out of politics God bless. In the mean time I am going to try to overcome the money with the power of numbers. All of the money is there to provide votes, and if you can gather the votes, you are holding the true power in DC.

[-] 1 points by daffyff (104) from Redwood City, CA 2 years ago

This doesn't seem complex. There are regulations in place restricting corporations and banks from giving gifts, even lunch, to financial advisers because it presents a possible conflict of interest between the financial adviser and his/her client. The same restrictions can and should be placed on representatives.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Even if you placed the same restrictions on representatives there is lots of outside money involved in the process that does not go directly to representatives. Super PACs can collect and spend unlimited money campaigning for issues or causes. I am just saying that although I agree the money on the hill has gotten completely disgusting, there are many reasons why getting that money out of politics will be a long and uphill climb. In the mean time I propose that we use the power that we do have to try to foment change.

[-] 1 points by daffyff (104) from Redwood City, CA 2 years ago

I see and understand your solution to fight fire with fire, and i can even concede that it would be the easiest route. It is not a solution I agree with or would support on principle though. I think it is the purpose of this movement to empower the american people, and the reason for its increasing popularity. Indeed the Constitution is structured for this very purpose: it assumes that those in power are corruptible and in the event of all branches being corrupt the citizens may step in and correct it. The status quo can be altered, not easily, but it can.

There is no ultimate solution to end corruption. Anything we do will be worked around eventually. But we can set a precedent for that future, an example to the next generation with how we correct it today. I would prefer the avenues made by our founders be used to their fullest rather then using the current, corrupt system.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

To each their own. Thank you for entertaining the thought. Best of luck.

[-] 1 points by lies (16) 2 years ago

it is possible to play the game better than the home team...can't hurt!

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

there is no ethical problem with removing money from DC. none.

freedom of speech? does not include the right to bribery. callign it freedomg of speech is a con scam and a lie. its bribery. people can by all means express themselves- but expressing one self and bribing politicians are not the same thing.

twisting it around to conflate it like the oligarchs have done is i suppose the obvious game for them to play, but in formal logic, systems, communication theory, and game theory, thats just a simple con scam and a lie, and does not hold water as an argument.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Unfortunately, you have the Supreme Court to overcome on that one.

[-] 1 points by daffyff (104) from Redwood City, CA 2 years ago

One of the demands should be to put in 15 judges instead of 9 like FDR threatened.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

a fine point, but somehow i think we can fix that if 99 percent of us stand together.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I am not saying that getting the money out of politics is not a noble idea. The trend is currently going the other way though, and change on that front would have to come from either a change on the bench, or a constitutional amendment. In the mean time I think that we can help bring the voice of the American people into the conversation. I wish you luck on your fight and I hope you will consider joining mine.

There is also nothing prohibiting using my site to push your platform. We will not be deciding anything as an organization. All of the issues will be decided by our members. We can unify and push for reform in the way DC works.

All the best to you.

[-] 1 points by kookla (79) 2 years ago

Not a bad idea, but the system of legalized graft that is campaign finance will still distort you access to those representative and make them turn a deaf ear to anything that competes with the corporate and wealthy donors.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

All the wealthy donors can do is to help buy votes. If we can help keep people active and informed that will be harder to achieve. We can bring them voting blocks that do not need to be bought with dollars. All the officials need to do is support the concerns of the majority and they will not need that money. We will rank how well our elected leaders represent the interests of their constituents. We will also rank how well they represent the interests of every individual member.

[-] 1 points by kookla (79) 2 years ago

Sorry I still think your going to have a hard time overcoming the inertia of the corrupt flow of campaign finance money and all the air time propaganda it buys that will siphon off your "voting blocks"...

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I am not saying this struggle is going to be easy. It is an uphill climb. But I would rather be climbing the mountain than standing at the bottom bitching about how tall it is. That is not a slight on you or your opinions. I just think that Americans as a whole have become resigned to looking up at those in power and wishing they had some.

[-] 1 points by lies (16) 2 years ago

do it...where, what, when do we observe your action from heere?

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

The website is www.lobbydemocracy.com. We will be opening up for membership November 6th, one year out from the presidential election. As membership grows so will the services. Some of the first things we will be adding are a full custom build of the website and database as well as a service that will enable both the organization and individual members of the organization to contact senators and reps through email. Currently you cannot contact a rep if you are outside their district. There is a program that you can buy that will enable you to do it, but it costs almost $5000. Yet another example of why we need to pull together on this. Even though it is disgusting that we would have to pay for such a service, lets share the cost of it and make sure that we have the ability to be heard.

[-] 1 points by lies (16) 2 years ago

i once wanted to thank marcy kaptor for going after foreclosure, but was denied for the reason you stated above.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Well then, soon you will have that freedom. Think it will be a great service for our members.

[-] 1 points by kookla (79) 2 years ago

I think you plan can be a part of what needs to happen but the end goal needs to be a constitutional amendment for public financing of elections and strict control of Lobbying that permits nothing of values from dinner to a bic pen to be exchanged and all meeting recorded for public viewing.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I think that many changes need to be made in the long term. I hope that people who are fighting that fight have great success.

[-] 1 points by lies (16) 2 years ago

money should not be an issue once the movement is convinced of your vision. we have small dollars but real big numbers...the money we usually send them we can send to your vision...

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

It is only going to take $20 a member per year. We will scale the service to the number of members. Benchmarks we are looking at now is a full custom designed site and support staff when we hit 3000 members. Probably hire our first writers somewhere in the 5000-6000 range. Open a DC office around 20000, etc....

[-] 1 points by greentara (78) 2 years ago

Oct. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Lobbyists play a prominent role in the Washington economy. In 2010 there were 12,964 registered lobbyists, with most working in or around the nation’s capital, according to figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington- based research group that tracks political spending. Spending on lobbying efforts reached a record $3.51 billion last year, up from $3.49 billion in 2009.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I am completely aware. How much of that $3.51 billion dollars was spent supporting issues you believe in and support?

[-] 1 points by greentara (78) 2 years ago

good point and i am not sure anyone can answer it. ive never hired a lobbyest, so i might answer zero

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Well you have the opportunity to change that now. We are here to represent your interests.

[-] 1 points by FairShare (90) 2 years ago

I know some tawdry hackers that could develop your sight. They would probably use to launch attack against Hersheys. Do you use a credit union? I think that post deserves some... merit. Banks have always screwed me, but once in a while I find a credit union that is pretty decent.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I also would like to thank you both for your conversation and for helping keep my thread live. We have had 33 visitors from this thread over the last couple of hours. Nice to have people stop by and see the site.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Unfortunately we are not yet using a Credit Union. I have to look into them in Philly and find a good one. I am pretty unfamiliar with the structure of them and have to check it out. I have had offers from a bunch of freelancers but I am worried about the security. I know that the hackers would probably structure the most secure environment, but since we will be handling other people's information I want to work with someone that is audited and approved. Eventually I hope we will be able to hire our own staff to do it, but that is a luxury we cannot afford right now.

[-] 1 points by FairShare (90) 2 years ago

I find it ironic that your website is lobbydemocracy. Still you need an independent to write your polls it would put some interesting content into perspective. I see it needs work but then all sites do. A paradox that lobbying can be a good thing when its for the benfit of the people. Ahh activist or lobbyist which is the greater evil? Still I think you must have some drive to go that far. I am contemplating two things right now. Wether or not I should be active on your site and the other is how and the hell do kill this gnat thats buzzing my board.

[-] 1 points by lies (16) 2 years ago

lmao...nothing like real down to earth people. makes me smile when we find what makes us alike.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Lol. Well I can't help you with one of those. The site clearly needs lots of work. There is a whole new site going up in two weeks. It is going to be a little sad to say goodbye to the old one flaws and all because I coded the whole thing and didn't know a damn thing about HTML or java when I started. The new site is a much stronger infrastructure, but we are giving up some flexibility. In the long run we plan on hiring a web development team. The current theory is that we will be able to do that when we reach 3000 members.
There are many failings that I know need to be addressed, but it is difficult when you are working full time to pay the bills and putting in 40 hrs a week plus on this. I am lacking many of the skill sets that will be needed to make this thing run well, but I am aware of that. We will need to grow and expand and bring people in. I hope that you will continue to consider joining. Even if you do not join right away please keep in contact with the organization and watch us grow. I hope at some point we will seem appealing to you.

[-] 1 points by lies (16) 2 years ago

went to your site to sign up, and "timed out" error occured within 2 minutes...toshort.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Ooo. Sorry that is not good. That is why we are putting in a new infrastructure before we launch. Hired out some people who actually know what they are doing. Guess you can tell I had done no web design in my life until I did this one.

[-] 1 points by lies (16) 2 years ago

you did good...I will keep at it til i get it done.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Our new system is now up lies. No more time out problems. Check it out when you get a minute. Thanks again for your support.

[-] 1 points by FairShare (90) 2 years ago

I must also point out that the citizen have the right to kill or no confidence at this level and suggesting a redirection as needed. Facebook would be a more daunting task if initiated properly.

[-] 1 points by FairShare (90) 2 years ago

....? I once thought that as well. To be fair I would say yes. It could be a lot of frustration and time consuming. However I must point out that in your response you have provided a solution to keeping a direct democracy hassle free.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

It does not implement a direct democracy. It simply represents the interests of a direct democracy to an indirect democracy. I think that small verbal difference makes a big difference.

[-] 1 points by FairShare (90) 2 years ago

Maybe a hybrid system. Look at how easy it ease to respond to someone on this forum. Imagine your locally hired Representative or Senator going to the floor or house on an issue. Since you would be registered to vote on his direction at this event simply by reading the popups when you get home on the issues he just sent to you as a citizen and then voting at this level to give that elected leader how his constiuents have voted giving him or her the direction the people want to go before his need to vote on a floor issue. Open for debate but I also see lobbyist as promoting a somewhat unfair biased decision process. In inner circles they are known as drug deals.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I think that we share a common interest even if we have a slightly different approaches to it. I hope you will take the time to check out my site and let me know what you think. It might not be your ideal system, but it will be ready for full launch in under there weeks. Lets get this show on the road.

[-] 1 points by FairShare (90) 2 years ago

Fair enough. Your point is valid and well taken.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Thank you kindly for your interest. Would love to be able to keep the conversation running with you as we get underway. I will send you my email address.

[-] 1 points by FairShare (90) 2 years ago

A concept always has the means to improve society if one truly beleives that their own idea has a merit to society. It would be important for citizens to have the right to vote for or on any bill or law that takes shape in the political arena. If every average citizen has this right and choses not to exercise this right can they still feel they had no voice? If two people are elected as the voice of the people for an individual state how many people will never have an opinion that counts? Decisions...Where, why, and how? The only solution is to make all bills and laws transparent to the people and assign a vote to every citizen. The only problem then is who rigged the electronic vote process, or can we rely on a system like this?

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

You are talking about a direct democracy, and I am sorry, but I do not believe that is a great idea. Keeping up to date on all of the issues and nuance on any one issue on Capitol Hill is a full time job. I am glad that we have elected leaders and their staff to work through the issues and try to make informed decisions. That being said, I am clearly not pleased with the decisions they have been making. Our elected leaders get a lot of their information from lobbyists for big business and special interests and they taint the decision making process. The money related to elections also clearly has a negative impact on our elected leaders willingness to represent their constituents. My approach is a middle ground approach. Keep the infrastructure that we currently have. Just add another layer to it. In this manner the voice of the majority can have a major impact on the decision making of our elected leaders and help guide the direction of legislation.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 2 years ago

the thing is, that's another top-downn organization:

This is what Horizontal democracy looks like:

http://groobiecat.blogspot.com/2011/10/how-ows-functions-horizontal-direct.html

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

It is not top-down or horizontal. It is bottom-up. All of the decisions will be made by the majority of membership. We are simply providing a framework that will enable us to determine what the majority wants.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 2 years ago

Bottom up is horizontal--as opposed to vertical. It's a phrase, not a concept. I posted that to show people how it actually functions--the description wasn't the main point. And yes, I understand what it's purpose is, but thanks for the feedback.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Lol. And apparently I am not alone in this. Someone else posted the clip on You Tube in relation to Occupy Wall Street. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QkzmqQdYG0&feature=pyv

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I am a little concerned that the video is very reminiscent of the "We are all individuals" scene in "The Life of Brian"

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 2 years ago

Well, I don't think you need to be concerned. This was posted by #OWS as part of an explanation for how the democratic process works through very simple, but very effective gestures. And it explains how people are allowed their turn to influence decisions. I think it's brilliant.

As it turns out--This really IS what democracy looks like.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I am just saying that if people are comparing it to "The Life of Brian" it might not be the most effective PR video. People are different. Anytime you get a group together there are going to be differences of opinion. We need to find commonality, but I think claiming that we can find consensus is counterproductive.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 2 years ago

Wait. First, you're the only one I've heard compare it to the Life of Brian. That's your thing. Second, this is meant to air all options and differences of opinion--it's not ignoring them. This doesn't run counter to the obvious truth that people are different and there are differences of opinion. It's actually a way to deal with them. Third, um, they actually are able to find consensus using the process shown.

Did you actually watch the video?

[-] 0 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I did actually watch the video. I am also not the only one comparing it to the Life of Brian. When I looked the Life of Brian quote up on you tube what I got was an edited clip cutting back and forth from the Occupy Wall Street protesters to the Life of Brian scene.

The behavior in your clip is using a mob mentality that many people are uncomfortable with. I know that all of those people cheer out everything in unison, but that is the power of the group mentality. I think we need a more reflective intellectual system if we are actually going to achieve change.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 2 years ago

Oh, wait, never mind. I'm wasting my time. I now see what you're doing. Sorry, my bad:

You're a TROLL. Crap, what a waste of time this is.

http://www.lobbydemocracy.com/ -- this is a republican shill website. nice. But hey, you had me there for a bit.

Nicely done!

Now, please, go away.

Peace.

[-] 0 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

The fact that I disagree with you does not make me a troll. I am appreciative of the OWS movement and I think that it is a great start. My organization is directly related to the conversation surrounding the movement and proposes a method for moving forward. To call the site a republican shill website is also strange. The site is designed to get the majority involved and represented by their elected leaders. It is officially neither Republican nor Democratic. I have strong left leanings personally, but to keep the site true to its ethos, that has to be outside the bounds of the organization.

I am sorry that you are unwilling to deal with opposition in relation to your perspective. I am not trying to take the wind out of your sails, I just don't believe that aiming for consensus is either an achievable or desirable goal.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 2 years ago

Okay, perhaps I was too quick on the draw. I'm looking at it again--you do mention Obama and Barney Frank. I apologize for my characterization.

"...I just don't believe that aiming for consensus is either an achievable or desirable goal."

LOL. Um, right. And consensus is bad because....? No. The whole point of democracy is consensus. To represent the majority of the peoples' interests. And thus far? The #OWS movement has done that. You have "left leanings" well, really, you should reconsider how you define that. Because inclusive pluralism is really what #OWS is about. If you find that distasteful or strange or otherwise anathema, well, you need to figure out why that is...

[-] 0 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Representing the peoples' interests and relying on consensus are two very different things. Inclusive pluralism is a great concept, except it is hard to utilize as a governing system. I believe in supporting the rights of the majority and protecting the rights of the minority. I believe in it enough that I have dedicated the last year of my life to creating an organization that will support that belief.

[-] 1 points by TonyLanni (291) 2 years ago

what happens when polls show that the majority is racist or homophobic or for violating protected rights and freedoms? Would you support an initiative to ban jews from holding public office if the poll results showed that the majority of americans supported it?

my main problem with the whole system is not just that the politicians are corrupt, it is that they also control the media and communications and seem to be quite good at brainwashing the masses. How do we deal with that side of the problem?

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I would say there are two separate, but related, concerns here. The answer to your question is that I would unfortunately be obliged to convey any opinion that the majority of members supported. I hope that they will never get to the extent that you are implying, but I am aware of the fact that I will have to convey opinions that I do not believe in.
This does not mean that I think that everything that we convey to our elected leaders should be acted on. We have a representational democracy for a reason. I am not recommending that we do away with the current system of governance and replace it. I am simply trying to bring the voice of the American people to the table. Lastly, we fortunately live in a country that protects the rights of the minority. There are certain rights that are protected beyond the reach of majority opinion. That could not be interfered with by the system I am proposing or any other system.

[-] 1 points by TonyLanni (291) 2 years ago

so then this in't a true lobbying group pushing for actual laws or regulations, but is just a reporting group, conveying messages? if that's the case, couldn't and isn't it already being accomplished? how is this different from what someone like nielsen does today?

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

We will be pushing for actual laws and regulations. The organization will be gathering data on where our membership stands on the legislation on the hill as well as collecting ideas for new legislation.

There are many organizations that support individual issues on the hill. Those organizations direction however, is guided by the management of the organization. This organization's direction will be guided by its membership.

Polls are certainly being done now both by the political establishment and outside of it. They are not being used, however to push the agenda of the majority. These will be sent to our representatives with a call to action. The representatives will have the opportunity to write back to their constituents and convey their perspectives on the issues.

In addition to trying to influence the action of our elected leaders between elections we will also be collecting information for our members about how well their elected leaders support their agenda. This way they will be able to make more informed decisions at election time.

[-] 1 points by TonyLanni (291) 2 years ago

maybe there needs to be an opt-in/opt-out for specific causes then. as a supporter of equality and the right to marry, i would never want my $ to be used to push laws to prevent it simply because the majority of people in this group support such laws. have you considered letting members take their dues and portion them to specific causes, thereby voting with $? This way you would know both the polling data of members on specific issues and where that issue fits in with their overall concerns. or maybe even, instead of voting with dollars, they just vote on the issues, and then if the dollars used to support it are based on such votes. so if i vote for marriage equality, and the majority supports this, a portion of my dues goes to it. but if i vote for marriage equality and the majority votes for marriage restrictions, then the you push for marriage restriction legislation, but do not use my dollars and others who don't support it?

just some thoughts to help refine it for your consideration.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I hope you will consider joining and help make sure that your agenda is heard. We need well spoken voices to enter the debate.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I appreciate your comments. Your concerns are justified. It is possible that your ideas may not be supported. I too am for the right to marry. I am sure that there are people that this statement will turn them off to the organization, but they have to understand that my opinions will not drive the direction of the organization.
I am wary of divvying up the money issue by issue. What we are all signing up to support is the fact that our voices are being overpowered by corporate interests, and we would like the voice of the American people to be considered in the debate. I wish that I could promise you that this voice will never be for terrible ideas but I cannot. My hope being a liberal is that the ideas that come out of the organization will lean that way, but to try to influence that outcome would hurt the ethos of the organization.

[-] 1 points by TonyLanni (291) 2 years ago

i ask that you just consider the idea. money will inevitably have to be divided by issues, simply because you will have limited resources and money and you have to divide it somehow and decide which ones to push and by what allocation of resources. ultimately someone in the group needs to decide this. if it is you or the leadership, it introduces the problems you are trying to counter. if you had a methodology where if i vote against an issue, when the share of my dues are divided up, it doesn't go to support this issue, i bet everyone would feel more comfortable with the concept and with joining, and it would remove any bias in terms of allocation of resources the leadership might impose.

this wouldn't actually need to be done on an individual basis, but could be done in aggregate-- if 60 people vote for one issue (30 against) and 40 people vote for another (20 against), you put 60% of resources toward the first issue, 40 toward the other, even though both have 66% support of those polled. if 10% of all of those polled voted against both issues you are lobbying for, you hold 10% of your overall money for other issues that they might vote with the majority on. this is mathematically the same as telling me that my dues will never go to supporting an issue i vote against, but is done in aggregate. still, this one statement makes me much more comfortable with joining.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I will think about it. The logistics of it might get complicated, but we will look into it. Thank you for your feedback.

[-] 1 points by TonyLanni (291) 2 years ago

thanks! ... i think logistically it's probably be a similar process that you will go through anyway, when you are deciding how to accomplish the lobbying for what efforts-- what resources and $s to put behind those efforts. making this a stated part of the overall system would really make people feel better about it, in my opnion.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

No. This is perpetuating the problem.
This is the governments responsibility to its citizens. We make the government do its job!

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I understand that this is what the government should be attending to. I think that we can all agree that it is not a great job of it. I am trying to gather the voices of the majority so that we can make the government do its job. I am just attempting to provide leverage.

[-] 1 points by anonymouscitizen (12) 2 years ago

I think this is a bad, idea because not everyone will participate and poor people will not be included. Good intent. I was thinking more about what the person said below about gathering signatures to get free air/press/web time. That would solve all the issues and everyone who is involved should have a site to visit that they are constantly connected to; like a facebook to address major issues, at the federal, state and local level.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I understand that not everyone is connected to the internet, but a pretty large segment of our society is. My solution certainly does not give you 100 percent participation. That is a level that we cannot even reach on election day though. It would grossly expand the voice of the majority population, and that is a compromise I can live with.

[-] 1 points by anonymouscitizen (12) 2 years ago

And I also would like to add, that when we elect our officials, they are elected to represent us. The idea that we would have to compete with corporations is disgusting and we should focus on getting rid of lobbying and not trying to compete with it.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I would agree that the need to compete is disgusting. The competition is already going on though. The majority is simply not competing.

As I have said before I am all for campaign finance reform. We have been fighting the issue from that angle for 30 years though to no avail. The Supreme Court sees the money as tied to freedom of speech. This means that we would either need a constitutional amendment or a new Supreme Court bench to overturn it. These are solutions that take decades.

I am not against those solutions. I just felt I needed to work on something that was going to have a more immediate impact.

[-] 1 points by meep (233) 2 years ago

I was thinking, instead of charging a flat $20, let people pledge an amount of their choice toward any agenda item they support. Maybe you can set the amount pledged as a bounty, any congressman or senator that actually votes for the agenda item will get a fair slice of the bounty in campaign contributions if the agenda item is adopted. If the agenda item is not adopted then the contributors keep their money... or something like that, don't know if that would be against campaign finance rules.

edit: actually that sounds kind of crazy, I'll leave it up in case people feel like heckling me though :)

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Lol. That is pretty funny. I am trying to make the money less important in politics, not sell it to the highest bidder.

[-] 1 points by Joey789 (34) 2 years ago

How about those who can't afford $20. What's the donation going to be used for anyway.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I am aware the the $20 might be a burden for some people and I don't have a good answer for that. I am not rich and cannot front the money for the effort myself. To accept outside donations would welcome the same scrutiny that Capitol Hill suffers now. I think the fee is fairly minimal and should not be overbearing for the majority of people.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

There are all sorts of costs that the business has already incurred and more coming. So far we have the cost of incorporation, web design software, hosting, security protocol, and database support. As we move forward we will need to hire a web design team, writers, researchers, lobbyists, an accountant, secretaries and everyone else that it takes to run a business.

[-] 1 points by Joey789 (34) 2 years ago

Did you set up a corporation already? Where's your article of incorporation?

If you had not, how can make sure that you will put your idea into work?

Had to ask, it just sounds a bit fishy. Right now all you have is a website full of ideas and asking for donation.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I understand that the process requires a little bit of a leap of faith. It is easy to join an organization that is up and running. It is easy to be member 83,000. Jumping on board early when we have not made it apparent that we will get big numbers requires a belief in the process. But if no one jumps early there is no way for the organization to catch. We have had modest but building traffic on the site and a fair amount of interest in membership.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

We already set up the corporation.

[-] 1 points by Joey789 (34) 2 years ago

What kind of Organization are you? Profit or non-profit?

What's the location for the company?

All these are not shown in the website

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

We are an LLC. We are currently located in Philadelphia, PA. We plan on moving to DC as soon as that move becomes financially viable.

[-] 1 points by Joey789 (34) 2 years ago

You might want to put these informations in your website.

Help you avoid answering them in the future.

Admirable ideal, hope you suceed.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

That is not the response that I expected from you. Thank you for your support and I hope we do as well.

[-] 1 points by Daxattack (15) 2 years ago

I thought you would be interested in the electronic petition that has been created on We the People, a new feature on WhiteHouse.gov, and ask for your support. If this petition gets 5,000 signatures by October 22, 2011, the White House will review it and respond! If a petition gets enough support, the Obama Administration will issue an official response. You can view and sign the petition here: http://wh.gov/gWX

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I will check it out.

[-] 1 points by justiciero (1) 2 years ago

Government financed elections will get rid of the lobbyists. Give each candidate some air time in national tv channels, web presence and a series of debates. No need for fundraising. Then the attention of elected officials will be 100% on the people that vote.

[-] 1 points by elamb9 (112) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Exactly, I think there should be a minimum number of signatures that need to be gathered in order to initially participate. From there, public debates should be held and follow up polls should determine the top x# candidates. Those candidates should be awarded airtime, funding, and another spot in a debate. Repeating the debates, polling, funding cycle should narrow down the candidates until x# remain and an election is held. An election should look something like a tournament where the candidates with the best ideas/platform advance and are rewarded with airtime and campaign funds. With national elections, candidates must start local, and work up regionally through each level. Although the lobbydemocracy idea is easier and could be the path to a fix in our democratic framework

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Thank you. One of the things that I think is important to consider as we work on trying to limit the power of money over our government, is that the candidates are not the only people spending to influence the election. The Supreme Court struck down limitations on outside spending and now Super PACs can be formed with no restrictions on what they spend.

Although I am all for the continued process of trying to clean up the system, I think it is also important that we try to elevate the voice of the majority at the same time.

[-] 1 points by elamb9 (112) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

With regard to the Super PAC issue, that is why I advocate a prohibition on all private spending for public campaigns. I think I'd still allow private money to endorse issues, but not candidates or parties. Elevating the voice of the majority is key to getting any of this change to happen...i'm excited to see what lobbydemocracy will be like. And by the way, how much $ will it be to join this group? Will you offer discounts or waive fees to people who cannot afford it? I certainly do understand that an operation this complex and ambitious would require funding to make it a success.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Annual membership will be $20. There are certainly many things that need to be funded to support the organization, but it is highly scalable. We will start out lobbying exclusively online. Unfortunately, even to do this we need to purchase a service that will enable this communication. Email correspondence with our elected leaders is restricted to people who live in their district. It is a sad sign that you need to purchse a service to circumvent this system, but it also expresses some of the benefit of the organization. As our membership expands we plan on hiring a full time web development team, and eventually opening up a physical lobbying presence in DC.

I understand peoples concerns about the membership fee disenfranchising some people who cannot afford it. To start with I don't think we are going to be able to address this problem. I hope to put in a system eventually though that will enable members to contribute to support the payments for people who find the $20 a burden.

Part of the problem with the Super PAC situation is that we would need either a new bench on the Supreme Court or a constitutional amendment to change it. Legislation was already passed, but it was struck down by the Supreme Court.

[-] 1 points by elamb9 (112) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

www.getmoneyout.com - the other site i've been advocating on this forum (besides yours)

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I can support that issue as well. I think it is the other side of the coin. I think we need to both get the money out of politics and help make the voice of the majority heard. Although my personal goal is tied to the second half of that argument I am signing the petition and will continue to keep track of their progress. Thank you for all of your support.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

And they could spend more time doing their job, instead of fund raising too!

[-] 2 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I am hoping that this project will help achieve that too. If we could overpower the money on Capitol Hill, it would mean that the legislators could spend time listening to the needs of their constituents rather than raising money from big business.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

Exactly! That should be our first objective, but we shouldn't stop there. To insure that we truly have a voice in our government, ........

I invite you to review this plan - and imagine the possibilities.

http://www.osixs.org/Rev2_menu_commonsense.aspx Cheers!!

[-] 2 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I actually find much of your preamble appealing. I also agree with some of your basic ideas on restructuring, I just disagree on how to get there. I think it is possible to form your fifth government branch outside of the realm of government. That is more or less what I am actually trying to achieve. Let the people have a direct influence in the process.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

The site above was created by computer geeks and engineers; that invented a super secure internet - The V2 - or internet version 2 (http://www.osixs.org/V2_Menu_V2.aspx). for citizens to vote and conduct oversight of the government. The V2 would be in the fourth branch - the Technology Branch. The fifth branch, is the Executive Branch - "The Peoples' Branch". We the people (using the V2) would conduct oversight over the Technology; Administration; Legislative and the Judicial Branches. A sketch of this is here: http://www.osixs.org/Rev2_menu_commonsense.aspx

To my understanding, an example could go like this: Congress, for whatever reason, votes to go to war. Your representative votes "yes". The majority of constituents in your district are dead set against going to war, and use the V2 to cast a "no" vote to overturn your representative's "yes" vote. The majority prevail so a "no" vote is recorded.

So as you can see, the people would have a direct influence in the process, with this type of government.

[-] 2 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I think that my idea is a little more conservative than yours. Yours would require a rewrite of the constitution. In addition to the fact that I think there are structural problems with a direct democracy, it would take decades to implement. The idea I am proposing will be up and running within the next three weeks. I know that it is not a perfect solution, but I do believe that it will give a decent amount of power to the masses through a direct democracy system. That system will be outside the actual structure of the government. It will tie into the government, and influence the government, but will not actually be a government institution.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

You are absolutely right; it would require a rewrite of the constitution. Iceland rewrote theirs in a couple of months. Direct democracy does have problems; but this is oversight - not direct decision making by the masses. There is no perfect solution; however I think we both have very similar goals. That is returning "Power To The People". Cheers!!

[-] 2 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Cheers to you as well and best of luck. I hope that you will consider utilizing my service when we are up and running. Since my system is a democratically controlled system, if you could carry enough support for your measure to gain the majority opinion, we could be a worthwhile tool in your attempt to restructure the system.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

I'm with ya !!

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Unfortunately those solutions take a great deal of time. The Supreme Court has been against campaign finance reform. In addition to the money spent by the campaigns, there is now no limit on outside spending. To overcome that you would have to either pass a constitutional amendment or wait until we get a new bench on the Supreme Court.

My approach gives us a method to overpower the presence of that money and put the power back into the hands of the American people.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 2 years ago

So basically like a credit union for lobbying? I like. But how do decisions are what interest are most important decided? Does your investment equal your vote?

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Every member gets one vote. There is a $20 flat fee to help cover expenses, but that is the only money involved in the system.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 2 years ago

And votes becomes our "cash" basically? Are members obligated to vote the way of the lobbying union to help guarantee the politician the votes? And how does hot button issues like abortion get lobbied for in this model? I really like the idea. And am just curious. I appreciate your thoughts.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

No one is obligated to do anything. We all just poll according to our own beliefs. I figure that many of the controversial issues will not hit the 65% majority necessary for the organization to take action. If the issue does not reach that threshold it just remains in conversation and we do not petition the government on either side.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 2 years ago

Not to be a negative Nancy, but what would keep opposition from always keeping the group from hitting 65% so that it could never make a decision? Much like we see in the Congress today.... I just think 65% is to high. Why not 51% or 55% to make it easier to come to a majority decision?

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

If you set it too low, you run the possibility of the organization flipping back and forth from one side of the issue to the other. Sends a message of inconsistency.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Part of the goal is for us to find issues that the majority strongly believes in that Capitol Hill is not getting done. If we can build the coalitions for them, it will be easier for us to draw support.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 2 years ago

I get it. It will help to prioritize the issues. I like the idea. What can I do to help?

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

We are up and running Nulambda. Check out the new site, and let us know what you think.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Responding to the thread has helped. I hope you have checked the site out already. If you have not give it a look. It is getting one overhaul in about 2 weeks as we move into the membership phase. We are hoping to hire someone to do a full custom build in the next two months, but will need some members to support that process. Beyond that, let your friends know about it, friend us on facebook, and join us on November 6th. Lets change the way DC works.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 2 years ago

Bet! :)

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

there are a lot of lobby organizations who started out with good intentions... and later got corrupted.. how would you handle that ?

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Because the organization would not pick the platform. So far as I know, there has never been an organization formed with this structure. Although we are a lobbying organization, the direction of the organization is decided by democratic vote not by money.

[-] 1 points by wweddingMadeintheUSA (135) 2 years ago

Good idea BTW

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Thank you. We will see where it leads in 18 days.

[-] 1 points by wweddingMadeintheUSA (135) 2 years ago

Boycott Imported Goods Buy Made in the USA!!!

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

That unfortunately will not change the wealth distribution structure in our country.

[-] 1 points by wweddingMadeintheUSA (135) 2 years ago

I don't need wealth distribution. I don't want a handout. I want a decent job!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[-] 2 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I understand the concern. And buying American would to some extent help the economy. The wealth distribution also effects the economy though,. We are a consumer based economy. As a higher and higher percentage of profits has gone to the uber rich, it has decreased demand in the US and slowed the economy. Henry Ford's belief that everyone who worked for him should be able to buy a Ford was not some sort of humanitarian dream. It was a realization that the people who work for you are also your market. The more wealth is swept away from the working class the more the economy stalls.

[-] 1 points by wweddingMadeintheUSA (135) 2 years ago

They're never going to just give us wealth we need those jobs back so we can earn it and demand decent pay. This is what we need to do to get jobs back. Products and companies we think of as quintessentially American don't even manufacture here. That is an injustice and the news keep saying we are spoiled and asking for handouts??? Many people agree with me and this would prove we want jobs. It is the greed of these companies, their CEOs wallstreet and ultimately the 1%. And it would really catch their attention they will have to listen!!!!!

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

We need a broad range of solutions. I am hoping the Lobby Democracy will help us find some of them.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I am not arguing against your theory. I try to buy american every time I can. I just was saying that alone with not fix the problems.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

This is a realistic, constructive idea that I could get behind. It reminds me of Stephen Colbert's "super-PAC".

From a funding point of view the organization might always trail the serious lobbyists but it could have the same kind of illustrative, educational value as Colbert's.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

What we would miss in money we would make up for in votes.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Well, are you a lobby or are you trying to win votes? Different things.

The problem is, how do you pick your issues? You can say that you're non-partisan by saying that you follow the polling on the issues, but a lot of the partisanship is in the framing of the issues. How do you deal with that?

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Much of the money in politics is there to buy votes. If you can convince the politicians that supporting the cause of your members will bring them the votes and prevent them from having to buy them, you have simply removed the middle man.

Considering the framing of the issues is very important and can of course taint the issues. We will do our best to keep the organizational bias as small as possible. Our members will not only answer where they stand on the issues, but also choose what issues we consider. If you have other advice in relation to minimizing our bias I would love to hear them.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

You're never going to be able to buy as many votes as a real lobbying organization because you won't have the same kind of money. You can't out-lobby Google. And you probably also don't care about most of the issues that Google is lobbying on.

The main value that this would have would not be in direct lobbying success, but in public education. Like Colbert's super-PAC.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I am talking about using the power of a voting block instead of using money as the currency,. If you can provide the end product you don't need the money.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

They do need the money. Money is more important than polls in a politician's campaign, because money can change polls. If you're competing against another lobby and they're offering cash for a politician's re-election campaign when you're offering nothing but a fact sheet on current polling data, then you're not going to accomplish anything. For example, your lobby would be #21 in influence, on this list of 20 contributors to Santorum.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I disagree with you on that. Money is used to change the polls. But it also assumes that people are getting all of their information from the campaign. If they are becoming more informed voters, and making their opinions known on Lobby Democracy we can carry the info on the voting block to push policy. Ask any rep or senator who the most powerful lobby is in DC and they will tell you the AARP which gives no money to any campaign.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I'm not trying to shoot you down. This is one of the most interesting and realistic and productive ideas that I've seen on this site so far. I'm just trying to help with some devil's advocation.

But why does any politician need you to remind them about how different issues are polling? Most politicians are already experts at following polls, without you.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I appreciate both the compliment and the devil's advocacy. They also pay a fair amount for those polls and they do not always reflect who is actually going to be voting. Our organization although not a random sampling will have a higher voter rate than the average population. You are taking a sampling of the people who care enough to give $20 to help make sure there opinions are heard. Rather than having to poll all of the time we would be bringing the data to them. Attached to that data would be a message explaining the perspectives of their constituents and a call to action.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

I like the concept ;) ... bookmarked, I'll ck it later..thanks

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

We are up and running Brad. First members have begun to trickle in even though tomorrow is our official launch date.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Thank you. Open to feedback through the contact us page if you have ideas for us moving forward.

[-] 0 points by stevo (314) 2 years ago

I want proof you spent 1000 hours on this. Sounds like bullshit to me.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Check the site out. It is the proof.

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

LobbyDemocracy wrote: why don't we just empower the majority and bring their voice to the table.END----

Yes, and do it within the ultimate form of democracy under the constitution, our first and last constitutional right, article 5. See step 3.5 for exactly what you describe integrated into use of article 5, a legal and peaceful rebellion.-

http://algoxy.com/ows/strategyofamerica.html

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Although this pathway to constitutional amendment does indeed exist, it has never been successfully completed. I respect the attempt and do not deny it is possible. I simply think that it is possible to achieve the same goal through the federal government.

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

On this page is a video featuring Bill Walker who sued all members of congress for not calling an article 5 convention. Congress is in violation of the constitution is why it has never been successfuly completed.------

If Occupy was about that, or the authority to meet all demands AND restore constitutional government, it would be a resounding success every day. Can we get discussion upon it, no. Not socially acceptable because the image has not been created for people to identify with. Believe it or not, mostly corporations do that, no matter where you find them.

[-] 0 points by w9illiam (97) 2 years ago

This 20$ fee to have my voice heard looks really fishy to me. Why don't you try asking for donations instead. It just dose not look like Democracy if people have to pay to vote in your poll or post in your blog. Shame on you for trying to exploit this movement. Drop the membership fee and I would probably join and donate. I was looking forward to this idea forming, then today you let me down with the membership fee. Try collecting donations. You would look a lot more legit!!!

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I think that donations has the possiblity of looking more corrupt and innappropriate than a membership fee. If you are accpeting different amounts from different people you leave open the criticism in which people are buying influence. We are looking to establish a system that will enable people to donate to a fund that will sponsor other people's memberships, but I have thought a great deal about the financing side and I think that this way takes the money out of the equation as much as possible.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I understand your hesitance. There is something about the entire process that is a little sick and disturbing. The fact that we need to pull together and form a lobbying organization just to get the government to attend to the job that they are sworn to attend to. I did not know any other system that would be a more equitable way of sharing the costs of the organization though. I am not rich. I work full time as a bartender and have put a ton of time and decent amount of money into this process. There are specific needs that need to be funded for the organization, and I thought it was most equitable to share them evenly.

For instance, you can only contact your own rep and senator through email. The rest of the email forms block you out. This means that you do not have the ability to electronically contact the head of a committee that is addressing the issue that concerns you. Sadly enough, there is a system that you can purchase that will enable you to contact these people directly. It costs $6000. As we grow we are looking to hire a full web development team to keep the site up to snuff. We will need writers to help put together statements for us. Although I understand your hesitance, I don't know anyway around it.

[-] 0 points by tsizzle (73) from De Pere, WI 2 years ago

we need to invade another country or two...but this time do it like empires used to do it

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Not only do I not agree with that statement, it appears to be completely unrelated to the thread.

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 2 years ago

Yeah, good luck with that, lol.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I'll just say thank you and ignore the lol.