Isn't putting the blame on "big business" and "lobbyists" just making excuses for spineless politicians?

Question

I see a lot of people on here saying how bad big business is, and that they via lobbyists, really control our country. Doesn’t the buck stop with the politicians though? Is it really a companies fault for using the system to their advantage when these idiots in Washington can’t stand up and do the right thing? Wouldn’t term limits help solve this problem? (ie: being in government isn’t really a great paying job, but all these people are doing very well for themselves. Hmmm….?

Answer 1

Being in government is a GREAT lifetime paying job!  The benefits are awesome.  You are correct about big business & lobbyists.  Our elected officials need the spine to stand up and govern for the people, not themselves.....

Answer 2

Couldn't you pass the buck one spot further?  Why not place the blame on the voters?  After all, what are lobbyists but voters who manage to make themselves influential?  If you were ambitious, you could lobby politicians too (not that I'm recommending that).  In my opinion, the blame lies with every individual voter who tolerates a system that controls such vast amounts of wealth and power that can be manipulated by such a small group of people.

Yes.  I know that you are trying to do your part by suggesting a reform that you hope will mitigate the problems.  But my counter-suggestion is to take a principled stand against so much being decided politically.  When politicians wield less power, then (and only then) will lobbyists stop exerting so much influence.

I think that term limits might (and I stress might) be a minor obstacle to lobbyists.  If a politician's time in office was limited, lobbyists might have to up the perks to influence them.  They might also have to come up with more cushy jobs for after the politicians leave office.  My point is that lobbying is directed at so much wealth and influence that they would find ways to adjust.

The only sensible path, in my opinion, is to remove the wealth and influence from politics.

Answer 3

You make an argument about elected politicians as a whole instead of looking at them as individuals elected to represent specific areas of the country.

Politicians will not vote against their districts - that's the easiest way to lose in the next election.  Representatives and Senators from Michigan don't vote for legislation that hurts the automobile industry.  Texas and Louisiana don't vote to hurt the oil and refining industries - because their constituents work for these companies.

Term limits is a TERRIBLE idea - it turns government over to the lobbyists.  Most of the issues facing the nation are complex.  The media may like to show sound bites, but the fact is health care, energy and tax policy are hard issues to understand and get right.  With term limits the elected officials barely have time to learn the process much less the substance of an issue.  Lobbyist and staff will be the only people knowledgeable and they don't answer to voters.

If you really want reform and elected officials who are responsive then support redistricting reform.  Right now most state legislatures draw their own districts and those of the members of the U.S. House of Representatives.  Guess what? Those districts are drawn so specific parties/people can win them.  Iowa stands out as a model of non-partisan simple district drawing.  The result has been that Iowa has competitve districts in the House of Representatives - of the 5 seats, 3 are Democrat and 2 Republican.  Not one of the members was elected with more than 60% of the vote.  Compare that to gerrymandered districts that allow the winner to take 80% of the votes.  

Does an elected official who can easily garner 80% of the vote need to be as in tune with his/her district as someone who barely breaks 55%?

That's how we get real reform in government!