Rep. Gaetz Wants to Change House Rules: Ban Campaign Donations From Lobbyists and PACs

[Say it aint so]

House Representative Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) suggested implementing new House rules in the next Congress, including banning members from accepting campaign donations from federal lobbyists and federal PACs, proposals, he said, “we should work with Democrats on.”

Gaetz also suggested banning members of Congress for life from becoming lobbyists and trading individual stocks. His proposals were presented at a forum held Nov. 14 by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) on conference rules for the incoming 118th Congress. His reasoning behind prohibiting members of Congress from accepting lobbyists’ campaign donations lies in the money involved, which “all has strings attached to it” and anybody who says otherwise is “lying,” said the Florida congressman.

HERE

Frankly I think Matt is a horrible person let lone horrible congressman, but I agree with him here. And so would the vast majority of "Democrats, for it's a argument they have been making years, specially since Citizens-vs-United. For example, me personally, I find it mind boggling so many politicians spouting patriotism and donning American flag pins, once they lose their seat run to become foreign country lobbyists hired to lobby the very committees they once served. Let's face it, our overall political system is tantamount to legalized bribery, the quid pro quo. As Matt mentions, get rid of that money and focus shifts from donor desires to what's good for their constitutes. (well, at least in theory). Nevermind why more of those in congress aren't stating the obvious, but why aren't voters making this obvious of what's wrong with American politics more of an issue? Or maybe that's a rhetorical question.

 

[Fantine]

"Federal" lobbyists and PACs? What about corporate PACs and lobbyists? Ban all or ban none. I think corporate PACs present the biggest problem.

 

[Arcangl86]

I think these are both good ideas, but the House Rules aren't the way to implement them. Quite simply, the House has no ability to restrict non-Members. That means for the first idea, current Congresspeople would be subject to a restriction their challengers won't be. I don't see a majority of the House agreeing to that. As for the second idea, well once they leave Congress the Rules can't effect them, so the ban would be powerless. If he really wants those changes, then he needs to commit to supporting legislation to do so. I'm not holding my breath on that count.

 

[Say it aint so]

"Federal" lobbyists and PACs? What about corporate PACs and lobbyists? Ban all or ban none. I think corporate PACs present the biggest problem.

I may be wrong, but I think corporate lobbyists have to registrar and thus the "federal" part of it.

 

[Say it aint so]

I think these are both good ideas, but the House Rules aren't the way to implement them. Quite simply, the House has no ability to restrict non-Members. That means for the first idea, current Congresspeople would be subject to a restriction their challengers won't be. I don't see a majority of the House agreeing to that. As for the second idea, well once they leave Congress the Rules can't effect them, so the ban would be powerless. If he really wants those changes, then he needs to commit to supporting legislation to do so. I'm not holding my breath on that count.

Kind of like the no lobbying ban Trump had, that they all ignored, I agree legislation is needed. Let's see if Matt can make inroads, because there are those across the aisle that would be on board, quite a few of them. Or is this just Matt being Matt.

 

[Ana the Ist]

HERE

Frankly I think Matt is a horrible person let lone horrible congressman, but I agree with him here. And so would the vast majority of "Democrats, for it's a argument they have been making years, specially since Citizens-vs-United.

I would say it's an argument that they used to make...but not any more. They would only even show interest if it's going involve the investigation of a Republican.

As for Gaetz...I know he gets lumped in with other "MAGA"Republicans. I know he faced and beat some accusations. I don't know anything about his politics.

I agree with this as well hough.
s

For example, me personally, I find it mind boggling so many politicians spouting patriotism and donning American flag pins, once they lose their seat run to become foreign country lobbyists hired to lobby the very committees they once served. Let's face it, our overall political system is tantamount to legalized bribery, the quid pro quo. As Matt mentions, get rid of that money and focus shifts from donor desires to what's good for their constitutes. (well, at least in theory). Nevermind why more of those in congress aren't stating the obvious, but why aren't voters making this obvious of what's wrong with American politics more of an issue? Or maybe that's a rhetorical question.

I think you don't even need to remove the politician. The reason why it's always a choice between bad and awful is that by the time you get to vote....they aren't serving you anymore.

 

[Ana the Ist]

HERE

Frankly I think Matt is a horrible person let lone horrible congressman, but I agree with him here. And so would the vast majority of "Democrats, for it's a argument they have been making years, specially since Citizens-vs-United. For example, me personally, I find it mind boggling so many politicians spouting patriotism and donning American flag pins, once they lose their seat run to become foreign country lobbyists hired to lobby the very committees they once served. Let's face it, our overall political system is tantamount to legalized bribery, the quid pro quo. As Matt mentions, get rid of that money and focus shifts from donor desires to what's good for their constitutes. (well, at least in theory). Nevermind why more of those in congress aren't stating the obvious, but why aren't voters making this obvious of what's wrong with American politics more of an issue? Or maybe that's a rhetorical question.

As for why Americans aren't focused on how completely broken and corrupted the system is....it's probably because we're at a point where real solutions seem impossible and people who are essentially outsiders running on popular narratives of their districts realize it's hopeless in about 4-6 years. I can recall AOC, Omar, Tlaib, Chip Roy, Greene, Gaetz all call out corruption loudly and repeatedly....but if they don't get voted out, they eventually give up and fall in line. They realize there's no way to really explain it to the average person, they can't possibly fight everyone forever, so eventually....they buy in.

 

[Say it aint so]

I would say it's an argument that they used to make...but not any more. They would only even show interest if it's going involve the investigation of a Republican.

As for Gaetz...I know he gets lumped in with other "MAGA"Republicans. I know he faced and beat some accusations. I don't know anything about his politics.

I agree with this as well hough.
s

You lost me. Matt is talking about donations. Not sure what investigations you're talking about.

I think you don't even need to remove the politician. The reason why it's always a choice between bad and awful is that by the time you get to vote....they aren't serving you anymore.

It's the system that needs correction, the same people who create the system and benefit from the system in the end.

 

[Say it aint so]

As for why Americans aren't focused on how completely broken and corrupted the system is....it's probably because we're at a point where real solutions seem impossible and people who are essentially outsiders running on popular narratives of their districts realize it's hopeless in about 4-6 years. I can recall AOC, Omar, Tlaib, Chip Roy, Greene, Gaetz all call out corruption loudly and repeatedly....but if they don't get voted out, they eventually give up and fall in line. They realize there's no way to really explain it to the average person, they can't possibly fight everyone forever, so eventually....they buy in.

The big shining star of what's wrong with American politics of course is Citizens-vs-United. I think there were a lot of Americans focused on that decision that opened the flood gates of what's wrong with American politics. Others not so much. Why? Culture wars work.

 

[Ana the Ist]

HERE

Frankly I think Matt is a horrible person let lone horrible congressman, but I agree with him here. And so would the vast majority of "Democrats, for it's a argument they have been making years, specially since Citizens-vs-United. For example, me personally, I find it mind boggling so many politicians spouting patriotism and donning American flag pins, once they lose their seat run to become foreign country lobbyists hired to lobby the very committees they once served. Let's face it, our overall political system is tantamount to legalized bribery, the quid pro quo. As Matt mentions, get rid of that money and focus shifts from donor desires to what's good for their constitutes. (well, at least in theory). Nevermind why more of those in congress aren't stating the obvious, but why aren't voters making this obvious of what's wrong with American politics more of an issue? Or maybe that's a rhetorical question.

You know....I first heard of Gaetz from his sex trafficking allegations and probably because the guy looks like a Superman villian....I thought he was a sleazebag. He's got a tendency to stick his foot in his mouth....but he's got cajones. He says things to politicians that aren't normally said. He consistently seems to want to fight corruption.

I'm pretty neutral on him for that....we'll see how long he keeps up that fight. At least he appears to understand when he has political leverage and how to use it...and the establishment Republicans would certainly prefer he do so against democrats.