A lobbyist spending money on a legislator is a constitutionally protected activity; as SCOTUS has ruled money equals speech. Like it or not, that is how the system works. However, calls to replace the system with some progressive-socialist pseudo-democratic system devoid of any lobbyist activity (except the will of the mob on the sidewalk) can be heard at any OWS encampment.

Isn't it wonderful to be beholden to those with more money? I mean, since money is speech, their speech counts for a lot more than yours does now. Reminds me of Animal Farm, where some are more equal than others.

vishnu - If you are talking about Soros and the power his dollars wield, I’m with you. However, I think you are inclined to take another view, as he is promoting your side. But lets find some middle ground. We all like the earth, correct? It’s the only inhabitable rock we have access to at this point. There are approximately 100 registered lobbying groups in the United States whose sole function is to lobby for the environment. Groups like the Sierra Club to the enviro-terrorists ELF all have lobbyists lining the pockets of congress with dollars somebody donated and thought they were planting trees or cleaning up a creek in the wilds of Idaho. Eventually, the trees might get planted and the beer cans picked out of the creek, but if the government is to contribute our resources to the process, I can guarantee a lobbyist was involved to influence the process.

As I sip my morning OJ, I can’t help but ponder how much of the donated OWS money has made it to some lobbying groups thus far. Money is speech and like it or not, anyone donating to their favorite group or cause is participating in the lobbying process and thus speech!

BTW: The tone of that last post is far more reminiscent of the Omegas in Animal House than anything from Animal Farm. Orwell was a democratic socialist and “no animals shall wear clothes” is laughable on its face! Freedom is the ability of the animals to choose to wear or sans clothing and to donate for the advocacy of their view on the matter.

You fail to mention corporations or the Koch brothers (since you want to take stupid sides.) It's no big surprise if OWS or the Tea Party threw money at a lobbyist. It's pretty much a given that you have to take part in a superpac or some other lobbying entity to make your "speech" count. What really annoys me is how the representatives manipulate things. Congress members just has to suggest how something is threatened and how they are trying to fight it, but can't without your "support." Support being money being "speech" of course.

Awwh, come on vishnu. We stake out our turf, run the flag up the pole and defend our positions. There is nothing abhorrent with that at all. The Koch brothers did not rate a mention because they are transparent with their financial support, as are the vast majority of corporations, primarily because they have no reason to hide. The paperwork is available for public inspection. Soros, on the other hand, has been rightly dubbed “Spooky-Dude” because his dollars can only be exposed with fervent investigation into the myriad of organizations he funds; multi-layered monstrosities on which his name does not appear anywhere, and many of these groups have no intention to benefit the cause of our freedom! He ran under the radar for a long time, but has since been exposed for the destroyer of liberty he is. It’s that whole hope’n change nonsense run amuck!

You and I could advocate for “a pox on all their houses” position when it comes to Congress, but the dollars we give to our selected causes, whether directly to an elected official or an advocacy group are and equal our speech; although admittedly vicariously. At least for the time being, we each have our little soapboxes. Lather up! (Orwell, really?)