After musing on the most recent episode of "West Wing" where President-Elect Santos wants to do away with lobbying, I've come up with a different tack. Instead of abolishing lobbying altogether, how about restricting lobbying to only non-profit groups?
Isn't that the real problem with lobbyists? They are all out to make a buck on the government's dime and they only care about their company or industry. They are flush with cash to wine and dine elected officials who then turn their backs on their constituents.
If only non-profits, such as the Red Cross, cancer research associations, environmental groups and social justice groups, were allowed to lobby Congress, then the chances of deals that benefit one company or industry at the expense of the people would be lessened considerably.
A few more musings after the fold.
The simple act of taking any profit motive out of the equation would solve the problem. K Street insiders would have to find real jobs or go toil for a non-profit.
The downside would be that religious organizations, as non-profits, would get more opportunity than they have now to lobby. Also, the selectivity of an elected official in choosing which non-profits he or she would meet with could come into play. For example, a right wing conservative might not ever take a meeting with NARAL or NORML. Likewise, a progressive Democrat might not ever meet with the NRA (are they even non-profit?) or Focus on the Family.
The upside would be that organizations with a productive agenda in service of their members would be elevated to a status that they don't seem to have today.
Anyone with vast knowledge about lobbying can let me know if this is a reasonable, workable solution or if I'm pissing up a rope.