As far as I know thats not wrong, which is why it could be understood within a liberal and especially neoliberal framework. I think.Lobbying is basically a way of making bribery and other related crimes legal while claiming to ban it... isn't it?
Though to be fair all she said was "the speaker has been removed from the chamber".Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO), a gun-toting supporter of the QAnon movement, is facing backlash - including calls for her arrest - after she was accused of live-tweeting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) location during the attack on Capitol Hill last week.
But under the table, no? Is the legalization of it a critical turning point? Again I really don;t know the technical ins and outs here. Just brute gnostic force.I'd imagine that form of quid pro quo has existed for as long as man has lived in any organized society.
Bellichick is turning down the Freedom Medal thingy that Trump wants to give him, universities are revoking his honorary degrees.. I could almost feel sorry for him if I wasn't laughing so much.
New England Patriots Coach Bill Belichick said in a statement Monday that he had turned down the opportunity to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Trump because of the “tragic events of last week,” a reference to the insurrection at the Capitol. But he said he has great reverence for “our nation’s values,” represents his family and the Patriots, and has worked with players to combat social injustice. "Continuing those efforts while remaining true to the people, team and country that I love outweigh the benefits of any individual award,” he wrote in a statement.
So perhaps "lobbying" as a euphemism for "corruption" is s relatively recent coinage. But the underlying phenomenon is as old as the hills.Lobbying proper probably is relatively recent, as a profession, as opposed to just currying favour, bribes etc
It makes a difference once you legalise it and make it into a profession. The Le Monde article I quoted the other day makes this point I think.
America needs law and order — but emphatically not the kind that President Trump has in mind when he uses the phrase. That's the message being sent by a broad coalition of CEOs who are silencing Trump and punishing his acolytes in Congress.
Why it matters: Private-sector CEOs managed to act as a faster and more effective check on the power of the president than Congress could. They have money, they have power, and they have more of the public's trust than politicians do. And they're using all of it in an attempt to preserve America's system of governance.
The big picture: The Constitution created an elaborate system of checks and balances that separated powers between the three branches of government. That system weakened as members of all three branches hewed increasingly to the platforms of the two political parties.
A new political force is emerging — one based on centrist principles of predictability, stability, small-c conservatism, and, yes, the rule of law.
LEo!! My hero!!I'd imagine that form of quid pro quo has existed for as long as man has lived in any organized society.
LEo!! My hero!!