Talk:Lobbying in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Start

I've created this article in an attempt to focus specifically on the US case. I'd like to:

• introduce some more headings
• cull the intro section into something more succinct (right now it is just a copy paste job from Lobbying
• expand the number of different lobby groups, and offer a short description of each

Hopefully others will help out! cheers Suicup 08:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

African-american lobby(ies)?

There are groups in that area such as the oft-mentioned National Association for the Advancement of Colored People -- it seems similar to AIPAC in a way with regular appearances of US presidents as speakers. NAACP is also relocating to Washington DC so it can be more effective. --Deodar 02:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Key lobbying groups

The main list is here [1]. The current list is not representative and seems very arbitrary. --Deodar 05:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, from reading the list/table, a person would likely believe that the 'Finance, Insurance & Real Estate' sector spent $2,116,701,718 in the years 1998 to 2005. This is incorrect, over the column that lists the dollar amount should be the heading "total." By looking at the cited page, you can see that the $2,116,701,718 figure is the amount purportedly spent by all lobbyists from 1998 to 2005. I'd change it, but I don't have an account and probably wouldn't know how to make a table. 70.245.187.172 20:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it - but its very rough. 70.245.187.172 20:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Money

I'm still not sure how the money raised by lobbyists are used to gain legistlation. I'd like to know how exactly money is used. Is it given to a representative in exchange for their time?

Basicly my question is why do Lobbysts need raise millions and billions of dollars? Can we ever make an account of how much lobby dollars went into putting legislation in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.42.92 (talk) 09:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Key groups

I expanded the Key groups section.

Before:

• Israel lobby
• China Lobby
• Arab Lobby
• Christian Right
• Gun Lobby
• Oil Lobby
• Labor Unions

After:

• Arab lobby (American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Arab American Institute)

• China lobby (Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office)

• Christian Right (Christian Coalition, Christian Voice Concerned Women for America, Traditional Values Coalition)

• Gun lobby (Gun Owners of America (Pro-Gun Rights), National Rifle Association (Pro-Gun Rights), Second Amendment Sisters (Pro-Gun Rights), Americans for Gun Safety Foundation (Pro-Gun Control), Brady Campaign (Pro-Gun Control))

• Israel lobby (AIPAC, Israel Campus Roundtable, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations)

• Labor unions (AFL-CIO, Change to Win Federation)

• Oil lobby (American Petroleum Institute, ExxonMobil, OPEC, Saudi Aramco)

Hopefully it is an improvement. I would also suggest adding the enviromental lobby, tobacco lobby, pharmaceutical lobby, etc. Regards. South Korean Sky 05:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! good work, although for Big Pharma, i probably wouldn't list actual corporations as they are not lobby groups. Suicup 12:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

How is this different to corruption?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.191.151 (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It is open and honest corruption :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.246.121.114 (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Foreign Affairs resource

• What to Read on Lobbying by Robert C. Lieberman

99.181.133.138 (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, interesting. Thanks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

What is lobbying?

What is lobbying? What is a lobbyist?

A lobbyist is person or firm that advocates for a particular legislative choice to a lawmaker; roughly.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Why cannot I and other typical citizens have the same influence on politicians as a lobbyist for a big corporation?

Lots of reasons. Money. Experience. Access.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I went to this article to find answers to these questions, but I did not find them.

I would like the article to say: "Lobbying is ....", "A lobbyist is ....", "Lobbyists have a special kind of influence over politicians because ...."

Specifically, sentences like

"Lobbying in the United States targets the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and state legislatures. Lobbyists may also represent their clients' or organizations' interests in dealings with federal, state, or local executive branch agencies or the courts. Lobby groups and their members sometimes also write legislation and whip bills. In 2007 there are over 17,000 federal lobbyists based in Washington, DC."

are not helpful in addressing these fundamental questions.

Agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I am pretty smart and well educated. It occurred to me one day that I don't understand what lobbyists and lobbying are, so I went to Wikipedia to find out. I could not find the answers there. My guess is that thousands have had a similar experience and that many millions, like me, just don't know what lobbying is. This article is of little help. 00:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Beginning of wisdom is realizing that you don't know something. Tough lesson. That education of yours -- is only the beginning. Keep learning.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I tried to sign this section but was unable to. I finally discovered that I have been logged out. This password business is the most frustrating damned thing. I can't remember a password for every site I visit ---- that's why I select "keep me logged in". But even that doesn't work. I give up. 01:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

ok, I finally got a new password and am logged in. I have removed the ip address and am signing this.

Dagme (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments noted.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

"Why cannot I and other typical citizens have the same influence on politicians as a lobbyist for a big corporation?" The answer is very simple. Because the world is corrupted. Scum is everywhere. A lot of scum is in your very own government. Particularly, if you live in a democracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.157.128 (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Revamp coming

This article needs major attending to. Organization, lack of focus, references to Amazon. I'll be working on it and proposing a revamp in a sandbox for perusal perhaps in the next week or so. If anybody has any particular comments in addition to the ones above, or things that need more focus, or ideas about how to improve this article, please write so here, soon. You're free to lobby me (and I listen). Generally when I do a revamp I try to keep the good material that is already here, but organize it better, and try to get everything referenced. Examples of my revamps: Hope Diamond, Wall Street, many others.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Update. I have a proposed revamp of this article here in this sandbox. I'll probably swap it in a day or so after I fix it up a bit; it needs pictures or graphics possibly plus some repairs to references and could be condensed perhaps. If people have reactions I'm interested. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

In the revamp, I generally kept all of the existing information, with many 2 sentences I chopped out which were redundant; most others were kept but often copyedited, and moved around quite a bit (if you read the whole article, you'll find it -- it's there). One big exception was the following paragraph that I couldn't quite get a handle on, so I'm moving it below. Does anybody know what it means and should it go back in? The article is getting rather long so I spun off the article History of lobbying in the United States which helped somewhat. I didn't check over the external links but assume they generally should belong. And if people have ideas about how to further improve this article, I'm open to being lobbied. :) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

HERE's the DELETED CHUNK: -- In January 2004, the U.S. Senate considered S. 1, an omnibus "ethics reform" bill. This bill contained a provision (Section 220) to establish federal regulation, for the first time, of certain efforts to encourage "grassroots lobbying." The bill said that "'grassroots lobbying' means the voluntary efforts of members of the general public to communicate their own views on an issue to Federal officials or to encourage other members of the general public to do the same." This provision was opposed by a broad array of organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Right to Life Committee, and the National Rifle Association, who argued that attempts by constituents to influence their representatives are at the heart of representational democracy, and that neither such contacts nor efforts to motivate such contacts should be considered "lobbying." On January 18, 2007, the U.S. Senate voted 55-43 to strike Section 220 from the bill. -- CHUNK FROM ARTICLE.

Nonprofits can't lobby?

I tagged the following line as being dubious; I think it at least could use some more explanation, but I don't have access to the full text of the source to try to decipher exactly what it means: "One account suggested that much of the activity of nonprofits was not lobbying per se, since it usually did not mean changes in legislation." Is it meant that there is something intrinsic about the nature of nonprofits that keeps them from affecting policy? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to explore more fully this whole issue of nonprofits and lobbying. In my revamp a while back I didn't really get into it much. I can't seem to access the original source (maybe it was HighBeam -- don't remember). Some different views:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Aahhh, tax exemption status - that makes sense, I'll look into it further. Thanks, cheers! AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Article reads like it's trying to defend lobbyists.

This article reads as if it was written by a lobbyist in order to defend their profession from criticism. It appears, to me, to possess some POV bias. For example statements like:

• "It is a highly controversial phenomenon, often seen in a negative light by journalists and the American public, and frequently misunderstood."
• "As an activity, lobbying takes time to learn, and requires skill and sensitivity, and depends on deft persuasion, and has much in common with generally non-political activities such as management consulting and public relations."

These are just statements from the introduction paragraph, and there are a few other like statements in the article. These in my opinion seem to make an attempt at vindicating or justifying a lobbyist's job instead of simply informing people what a lobbyist does and how they do it. Thoughts anyone? I didn't want to rewrite the sentences in the article, but if it was me I'd've dropped the underlined bit in the first one and omitted that last statement (or just made the comparison to management consulting/public relations). Jargon777 Leave a message 15:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting comment. I wrote much of this article. I am not a lobbyist. I am a handyman. I revamped this article perhaps a year ago, and I strove hard to keep my own personal biases out of this article (eg, my biases include: very strong anti-lobbying bias, pro-constitutional reform to the point that I think the US needs a new constitution, non-partisan critic of both left and right, etc etc -- check out my user page here if interested). When I researched the topic, I worked from extensive newspaper sources as well as textbooks, and I tried very hard to report accurately what the sources were reporting, overall. And what the sources said was: lobbying is a controversial phenomenon; it does require skill and sensitivity; it depends on deft persuasion; it takes time to learn; it has much in common with management consulting and public relations. That's what the sources said, basically; I did not make this up. And I think the overall result is fair. Please remember that diverse groups depend on Wikipedia for information, including wannabe lobbyists, high school students, activists, newspaper reporters, critics from both left and right, and so forth. This article has something for everybody. I think if you read the full article, you'll feel that it is balanced overall, presenting both the positives and the negatives (there's a whole section devoted to the negatives later on). And that removing a line here or there will tilt the article in some other direction. So I guess what I am saying is that before you make any changes, please read the whole article, make your assessment again, and then perhaps you'll be in a better position to make constructive edits.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I read most of the article (it is pretty long) but I didn't change anything at all. My comment was just stating my impression of the article after reading it. I guess most of my qualms were with the introduction paragraph, but I feel like the article talked a lot about lobbying and lobbyists in general when it's a sub-article about lobbying in the US. This wealth of information about lobbyists may have made it come across that way to me, since it's information I didn't really expect. I'm not interested in making changes to the article just mentioning what I thought, and if you wrote most of it I commend you on it as it is still a well done article and I commend you for following up on it even though it's been awhile since you did the research. Jargon777 Leave a message 18:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey if you read most of the article, then please feel free to make fixes to the introductory paragraph as you see fit. The benefit is you have fresh eyes -- you see things in a new way, so you're likely to make improvements. It might have been the case that I had been trying perhaps a bit too much to be too neutral, so the article comes across now as somewhat biased? I had a reaction similar to yours -- it was information I didn't expect -- when I had researched it; that's why I put in the "frequently misunderstood" thing in the introductory paragraph -- it had applied to me, too, because I had thought that I understood the lobbying stuff before going into it, and learned much in the process. Plus, I came across a source saying that most people didn't quite grasp lobbying. About the lobbying in general overview -- it is probably needed for context, even though this is an article as you said about American lobbying.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree on this one. All professions nominally say that they're about truth and virtue and intelligence. So talking about these qualities doesn't impart useful information and just promotes the article's subject. And the bias is so pervasive that I don't think a quick fix here or there would solve the problem. --Nogburt (talk) 06:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

How about, to make it more neutral, the lobbying negatives are enumerated in the lead section -- specifying the controversies in more detail in the lead paragraph.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Replacing the normative statements with some of the negatives up top would help a whole lot. All of the normative statements about lobbying and lobbyists need to come out or should go in a separate section further down. --Nogburt (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Hey I like your edits -- you're a sharp writer and thinker.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I whole-hardheartedly agree with User:Jargon777's initial comments. This article is overtly pro-lobbyist, not neutral in any way, and I do not see how it could be considered a proper source. It reads like an opinion piece, even though they don't present it as such on the website, putting it in an ambiguous "Small Business" category (which is odd considering most lobbying is done by large corporations and special interest groups with national influence). Who in their right mind would consider this a neutral statement: "Lobbying is part of the communication between government and citizens."? Yeah sure, if you completely agree with Citizen's United, which a good number of people do not. The author writing that lobbying is "often misunderstood" is pretty condescending, as if she were trying to teach us "dummies" the correct way of having an opinion of lobbying. Researching the author, Evangeline Marzec, shows me she is "mobile strategist". "Strategists" are often lobbyists themselves, or were previous lobbyists, become lobbyists or work closely with them. yonnie (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree, generally. I would have fixed up this article, based on these and prior comments, but I have not gotten around to it. Take out the frequently misunderstood. My sense is the lead paragraph should have more of lobbying's negatives in it. Agree about removing the Chron as a source. About the statement Lobbying is part of the communication between government and citizens -- probably came out of a textbook. The whole subject of lobbying is highly contentious.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Sunlight Foundation research and notable lobbyists

Been reading the Sunlight Foundation's recent discussion ("What lobbyists in the 1 percent of the 1 percent want (Hint: a lot) and "Robust Lobbying Disclosure Needed to Address Advantage of the 1% of the 1%". The latter has some of the more prominent players, and I'm wondering if there should be some discussion of notable lobbyists. II | (t - c) 20:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. However Wikipedia generally does not like blogs, but if this material finds its way into reliable sources particularly which are secondary, let's try to include it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe an external link is the ticket here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Origin section: correct citation to Lalor, Cyclopaedia of political science, political economy...

The current citation to John Joseph Lalor (editor) (1890). Cyclopaedia of political science, political economy... refers to "see page 78". I believe the correct reference is to page 778. - DutchTreat (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

What's the difference between lobbying and outright corruption?

A typical form of corruption is bribery: someone gives money to another one in a position of power to get certain (unfair) adventages. Lobbysts are useing huge sums of money to influence politicans, for example by funding their campaigns and for that they expect a favorable legislation for their clients. This sounds pretty much as the definition of bribery. What's the difference? 84.0.42.178 (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Tough question. Both lobbying and bribery are complex terms with considerable overlap, with lobbying generally viewed in neutral-to-negative ways while bribery is usually seen as negative, illegal, immoral. The context is highly important. Lobbying is essentially paid political persuasion, paid advocacy, partly protected as free speech and sometimes seen as a legitimate part of the political process, depending on the context. For example, if you or I send a check to a lobbying firm for the purpose of having its lawyers urge congresspersons to "save the whales", for example, then this activity might be viewed positively by many groups such as environmentalists. But other lobbying efforts, such as when a corporation lobbies to restrict competitors from entering a given market to boost its own profits to the detriment of competitors -- this may be viewed as harmful to society as a whole and against the spirit of free competition. Bribery, generally, has more a sense of corruption. The word corruption is from the Latin corruptus, loosely translated as "to break together" -- two parties conspiring to break something by working together (or, a corporation and government regulators conspiring to break the larger marketplace, e.g.) -- in which two parties reward each other but break something larger such as the public good. Lobbying is generally more open and transparent in the US, particularly regarding amounts of money paid, and not necessarily in terms of purpose or intent. In contrast, bribery is almost always secret (or if exposed, can lead to punishment, shame, etc). Lobbying can be illegal in some situations; in many others, lobbying is permitted but criticized. In contrast, bribery is almost always illegal and secret. But overall there is considerable overlap between the two terms. Hope that helps a bit.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

And a key problem is the issue of "fairness" -- is a specific ruling by Congress "fair" or "unfair"? It depends greatly on who is determining the supposed "fairness". A tax break for a polluting company may seem fair to that company, but unfair to everybody else having to breathe in more pollution. And the issue of what constitutes the supposed public good -- what is that? Who determines it? These are tough questions.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe may question wasn't clear enough, becouse in your answer you discussed lobbying and bribery in general terms, while my question was about something specific. Lobbying can have many forms, includeing sending a letter to a congressmen wich is of course can't be any further from bribery. But according to this article, in the US it is common and perfectly legal to give large sums of money to the targeted politican by lobbysts as a means of adding wight to their arguments. By common sense this is blatant bribery just being called in another name! Becouse:

Bribering a politican: Offering him a sum of money (or some other adventage) and asking for a specific legislation in return.

The abovmentioned lobbying practice: Offering the politican a sum of money and asking for a specific legislation in return.

Did I misunderstand something or there really isn't a difference? And if the latter, how can this practice be legal? 84.0.42.178 (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Your statement that it is "perfectly legal to give large sums of money to the targeted politician" -- that's incorrect. It is not legal to do that. That is bribery -- defined by law. Congresspersons can not accept direct cash or checks from anybody. But a corporation can hire a lobbyist, and the lobbyist might try to persuade a politician to vote a specific way on a pending piece of legislation; lobbyists can entice a congressperson (or their staffs) with a lucrative lobbying job after they finish in the Congress. Lobbyists can legitimately hold fund-raisers to raise monies to re-elect the congressperson. The payments are indirect, generally. Congresspersons benefit by having their re-election committees have much cash to spend on political advertising (which can be very expensive). Does this answer your question?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

False. Lobbyists can contribute "donations" to a congressperson's reelection campaign. This saves the congressperson A LOT of money, which is in essence giving them money. yonnie (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

What's the difference between lobbying and outright corruption? Is funny, to USA in the rest of the world the lobbying is called corruption, they have index and everything...but in the States is lobby...152.170.24.22 (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Lobbying in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/60IJs5vay?url=http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/index.php to http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/index.php
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/60IJs5vay?url=http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/index.php to http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/index.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101219035024/https://opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=c to http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=c
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/60IJs5vay?url=http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/index.php to http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/index.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110116071137/http://lessig.org/blog/2007/06/required_reading_the_next_10_y_1.html to http://lessig.org/blog/2007/06/required_reading_the_next_10_y_1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140410155637/http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/lawrence-lessig-on-how-we-lost-our-democracy-20111005 to http://www.twelvebooks.com/books/republic_lost.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/10/04/am-campaign-finance-lobbying-major-roadblocks-to-effective-government/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lobbying in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130411172748/http://www.illinoisfirstamendmentcenter.com/petition.php to http://www.illinoisfirstamendmentcenter.com/petition.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070401080352/http://www.nrlc.org/FreeSpeech/WaxmanDavisHR984.pdf to http://www.nrlc.org/FreeSpeech/WaxmanDavisHR984.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614123520/http://www.nrlc.org/FreeSpeech/DoJletteronHR984.pdf to http://www.nrlc.org/FreeSpeech/DoJletteronHR984.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lobbying in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090610175801/http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/ethics/ to http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/ethics/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100623130723/http://www.soc.washington.edu/users/burstein/Tichenor_Organized_Interests.pdf to http://www.soc.washington.edu/users/burstein/Tichenor_Organized_Interests.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Foreign nations section in lede?

Hello,

Is there a need for an entire paragraph in the lede to be about foreign nations lobbying? It seems too topical, and specific to the current administration. I'm hesitant to remove it, but it seems like it is really long and not necessarily satisfying a need. ChunyangD (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Bodycams on lobbyists

Hey, so presidential candidate Richard Ojeda proposed putting bodycams on lobbyists, and I'm wondering if that's something that could fit in this article. Thanks! Freedom4U (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)