Don't Like Lobbying? Try the 10th Amendment Solution

Common sense from the Agitator and a Ralph Naderite:

“…the amount spent on lobbying . . . is related entirely to how much the federal government intervenes in the private economy.”

I'd wager that is "directly proportional", not merely 'entirely.' Sez Agitator:

...All this money the private sector is spending to influence how the laws are written is money not spent on developing new business plans, R&D, or otherwise contributing to the broader economy (though it does contribute to D.C.’s). It’s part of the cost of major new government initiatives that isn’t generally considered.

I think lobbyists get a bad rap. Sure, most of them are spineless and unprincipled. That doesn’t make them any different than most people in Washington. But I can’t begrudge anyone who wants to spend $1 million to prevent the government from enacting laws or regulations that are going to cost his business $10 million.

...The way to reduce the influence of lobbyists in government is to reduce the influence of government everywhere else. Nothing else is going to work.

Of course, that’s never going to happen. So instead, the solution from both parties, though it’s generally more supported by Democrats, is to restrict the right of individuals, groups, or businesses to have a say in how the government operates, be it through campaign finance restrictions or stricter lobbying rules. Put another way, they want to pass unconstitutional laws limiting political speech so they can better pass unconstitutional expansions of government power that aren’t tainted by the appearance of impropriety.

Actually, that's been mentioned.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Trying to find National Socialist HealthCare (NaziCare) in the text of the Constitution, but Folkbum prolly found it first...I'm sure he'll cite the passages.