Military Review

"The lobby is a flower that blooms only in darkness"

63
Americans can talk about corruption in the Russian Federation as much as they like; they will be right: it is harmful and detrimental to the state. And, as usual, they have no problems with this, because they turned their corruption into completely legal. Lobbying is corruption wedged into the framework of the law. We, therefore, Baba Yaga, and you - Snow Maiden. Well, not surprising, rather natural. Let's try to consider the impact of corruption lobby on the economy, domestic and foreign policy of the United States.


"The lobby is a flower that blooms only in darkness"


Lobby (from the English lobby - the lobby where members of parliament could communicate with outsiders), a specific institution of the political system, which is a mechanism of influence of private and public organizations - political parties, trade unions, corporations, business unions, etc. pressure) on parliamentary decision making. First of all, lobbyism refers to budget allocations, financial subsidies, leading posts in parliamentary committees, etc. Lobbyism first appeared in the United States, where lobbying with 1946 is regulated by federal law.

Now laid out on the shelves. There is a “Customer”, and it can be anyone — an individual, a group of individuals, a company, a corporation, or even a state. The main measure is solvency. The next link in the chain is a lobbying company. Let's call it "Artist".

The top ten largest lobbying firms in the United States now include (according to the results of 2001): Cassidy & Associates (revenue for the first half of 2002 amounted to $ 16 million 680 thousand), Patton Boggs ($ 10 million 260 thousand), Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld ($ 9 million 480 thousand), Verner, Liipfelt, Bernhard, McPherson and Hand ($ 8 million 840 thousand), Van Scoyoc Associates ($ 6 million 240 thousand), Greenberg Traurig ($ 8 million 675 thousand .), Williams & Jensen ($ 5 million 680 thousand), Barbour Griffith & Rogers ($ 5 million 480 thousand), Washington Council Ernst & Young ($ 5 million 500 thousand), Hogan & Hartson ($ 3 million 380 thousand).

And finally, the last link in the chain itself “Client” is a senator, a congressman. The customer can directly conclude “purchase and sale” contracts (this is called an innocent “donation to the electoral company”) with legal terms and directly before the client is elected to the post. Further, the "Contractor" undertakes the matter. And here it is not necessary, naturally to indiscriminately moss the lobbyist firm, that it is simply a courier for delivering a bribe to a congressman. Not. The lobbyist also undertakes the obligation to form a positive image of the “Client” through the media.

And as for me, even in the very definition of “Lobbyism” there is already a concept, as the pressure on the legislator to make a profitable decision. So, consider the forces that influence the decision making of the US legislative and executive authorities.
Let's go to the numbers:

Health and Pharmacy - $ 478,5 million
Finance, insurance, real estate - 453,5 million
Energy - $ 156,7 million
Insurance sector - 153,2 million
Oil and gas sector - $ 133,2 million
MIC Over - 87mln


Naturally, this is not a complete list, but the main violins of the “orchestra”. There is also an agro-industrial complex and Koch Industries with its “Tea Party” and many others directly influencing domestic and indirect foreign policy. We must not forget about external "customers". As Zbigniew Brzezinski noted, the influence exerted by ethnic lobbies is rooted in the absence of a single body in the US government that plans and coordinates American foreign policy. Theoretically, this role should be played by the National Security Council, but in real life the National Security Council is so busy with workflow, ensuring the exchange of information between the presidential administration, the State Department, the CIA, etc., that there is not enough time or energy for strategic planning. As a result, the process of foreign policy decision-making becomes decentralized, fragmented and, therefore, subject to external influences. One of the old and effective lobbies is the Japanese, which has recently been losing ground, yielding to the rapidly gaining Chinese. But the real monsters lobbying their interests is the Israeli “AIPAC”.



US-Israel Public Relations Committee AIKOS (Eng. American Israel Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC) —American public organization whose goal is to influence the conduct of the pro-Israel policy in US foreign policy.
This relatively small group with a small lobby budget has achieved impressive results due to organization, reasonableness of actions, support at various levels. None of the lobbies could turn it away from their own American national interests, while at the same time convincing Americans that the interests of the United States and Israel are, in fact, indistinguishable. Having controlled media giants, such as leading television channels NBC and CBS, influential newspapers New York Times and Washington Post, other publications, they form public opinion. Israeli lobbyists also skillfully use pressure from below - from the voter to the congressman. Sympathetic voters, who are skillfully coordinated on the ground by AIPAC activists, literally flood their congressman or senator with letters, demanding that they take an advantageous decision for AIPAC. The politician, sitting in Washington, makes for himself the conclusion that for his electoral rating one needs to make a decision that his voters so strongly demand. Another source of power for AIPAC is the pro-Israel staff of the Congress apparatus. As Morris Emitay, the former head of AIPAC, once admitted, “there, a higher level (on Capitol Hill), there are a lot of guys who were destined to be born Jews and who willingly ... consider some issues through the prism of their Jewry ... All these guys are able to make decisions for those senators on these issues ... A lot can be done already at the level of the apparatus. ” Everywhere there is a blocking of information that is detrimental to US-Israeli relations, politicians who take a disadvantageous decision for AIPAC are subjected to the most severe pressure. Skillfully concluding tactical agreements with other lobbyists, they confidently promote their financial, legislative and military interests for over forty years. The power of this quantitative small and low-cost lobby is compared in effectiveness with lobbying titans, like the National Owners Association weapons (National Rifle Association) and the American Association of Retired Persons (American Association of Retired Persons). I suggest you evaluate the results of their work:

• The amount of US aid (in 2003 figures of the year) is 140 billions of dollars. Three billion a year!
• Strong diplomatic support. Since 1982, more than 30 resolutions of the UN Security Council have been imposed.
• Sanctions to individual countries. Iran. Iraq. Jackson-Weinik amendment.
• Ignoring Israel’s nuclear and chemical weapons
• Unlimited access to intelligence (no one in NATO!)
• The Iraq war was unleashed under pressure from the AIPAC. The oil lobby and the military industrial complex, of course, also “had a hand in this,” but from an economic point of view.

The United States in the form of access to oil is difficult to find an adequate rationale:
The Guardian of London in 2008 published excerpts from a new book about the Iraq war, Nobel Prize winner in economics, chief economist of the World Bank, Joseph Stiglitz. According to his calculations, only the first 10 days of hostilities in 2003 have cost the US $ 5,5 billions. He suggested that direct and indirect losses from this war would cost 6 trillions of humanity. Half of this amount will come from the United States. This list can be continued for a very long time. And one has only to wonder how the Israelis, without having budgets in lobbying comparable to Arab or retirement, achieve such results.

Of the “internal pressure groups” in the second (since 2010), the financial sector ranks first in terms of the number of bribes - kickbacks of funds spent on promoting their interests. The size of their “injections” and, as a result, their claims for changes in legislation are not comparable with all other lobbies. The Democratic Party has grown together (taken for dependency) fininternom, which only for 2008 year spent on promoting their interests 457 million dollars. The growth of the power of the financial lobby began with the presidency of Ronald Reagan. The production of goods and services began in the modern American economic model as a byproduct of making money. It seems that the United States is not a state that has a financial industry, but a financial industry that has its own state. How it works? Thanks to the financial lobby in Congress. "It is impossible to believe that a year after the global financial crisis, not only its main culprits did not suffer punishment, but the whole system remained intact," said political writer Ron Saskind, author of the book "Too Big to Fall." Quite indicative turned out история with the law of the Voice - Stigall. He did not allow the use of the savings of Americans in investment activities. And it was she who brought the main profits to investment banks. The Gramm-Lich-Blily law in 1999 canceled this ban, unleashing financial monsters with their hands in big-and-high-risk games. This game ended in 2008 with a global financial crisis and a partial loss of retirement savings by a significant part of the population, and not only in the United States. In order to save its financial sector, the government is implementing the “Paulsen Plan”. In November 2008, the US Federal Reserve announced a “quantitative easing” (QE) program. The program provides for the purchase by the US Federal Reserve of "toxic" bonds (illiquid assets) due to the issue of US dollars. From November 2008 to June 2010, the Fed bought up mortgage debts and other bonds on 2,1 trillion dollars. Well, big spending on lobbying - but the result is not small. So far, I deliberately miss the “pressure groups”, whose interests are confined only to the “cutting” of the budget and do not directly affect foreign policy. A very serious "pressure group" is the military-industrial complex. Interests are close to the military-industrial complex. The sacred cow, which until recently no one could not only encroach. Private lobbying of private interests goes to direct lobbying of their interests. Of particular note are companies such as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, General Dynamics. And, it is understandable that it is this sector that has consistently “FOR” wars in any part of the world. Our “favorite” congressman McCain is with you sitting on the contentment of this sector of the American economy. However, not only them. Affectionate baby of two queens sucks.

Any attempt to sequester their part of the budget creates a "Boston terrorist attack." Yes, this is not proven, as their involvement in the 11.09.2001 events of the year has not been proven, but the official version doesn’t seem to be true.

And two more aggressive lobbies, which can not be said. Arab and oil national. During the years of high oil prices, the Arabs began to invest free money outside their own country. They invested in the US military-industrial complex, the Finintern received in trust more than a trillion dollars. Yes, and having the opportunity (than they have repeatedly used) to put pressure on the US administration with the help of the “oil lever”.
Obama will not envy! The loaf is very large: almost 3,8 trillion dollars, revenues to the treasury - mainly due to taxes and other fees - 2,9 trillion dollars, the deficit - 901 billion. Mouths, I must say, is also not small. Obama is once again faced with a difficult task - to push the budget through the congress. And this is where the dances with tambourines begin. It seems like everything is in the same boat, the bottom is leaking, but everyone is rowing to his side. And now, at this moment, the flower that blooms only in darkness blooms in full glory. Double bets for accelerated decision making, a reminder of the duty to their voters, mutual accusations of populism and non-competence. Everyone wants to bite off a little more, but better twice.

And since everyone understands that it’s impossible to endlessly live with a budget deficit, all “pressure groups” want only one thing: that the sequestration does not touch them personally. In 2013, for the first time, the sacred cow-military industrial complex was significantly deprived. 46 billion dollars was not received by the Pentagon, (the amount of lost funds is equal to the German military budget!). Due to budget cuts, the Pentagon will be forced to abandon the maintenance of 11 ships, which are based at the naval base in Norfolk, Virginia. In the future, four aircraft carriers, the Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, Roosevelt and John Stennis, which will be mothballed, will be withdrawn from the US Navy. And that's bad luck: they seem to understand that without an effective and modern army, too many people have ruined life for the last forty years, but who else can sequester? Fortunately, the Pentagon has a lot to do, its budget is comparable to the total military budget of the rest of the world. Not left without a transparent hint and Israel. Henry Kissinger, the most experienced politician, said: “In 10 years, Israel will cease to exist as a state.” Politicians of this level are very careful in choosing words! HAS SPREADED! Cracks began to expand in the so far from monolithic stone. Another serious disagreement - the Finintern (Wall Street, supranational elite), has already been given the “Zero Plan”. The essence of the plan is to create a huge belt of instability throughout the Muslim world, raising the price of oil along the way in order to stagnate China. And everything went according to their plan. Afghanistan, Iraq, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt. To close the blazing belt of chaos, there is not much left - Iran and Syria. For us, too, prepared a big bitter pill - the Caucasus. Then they planned to transfer the main forces to China. By the way, we see the aggravation of relations between China and Japan; on the other hand, the Xinjiang-Uygur Autonomous Region would have flared up. As a result, all the attention of the countries of the Eurasian continent would be switched to military events, the prevention of terrorist acts. At this point, it was planned to reset the dollar, with its possible replacement with a new unit. Obama, with the support of the Democrats, pursued a policy of sponsors, but opposing forces appeared. The national elite (not to be confused with the Nadnational – finintern), represented by the Republicans, that is to say, the real sector. They advocate gradual inflation, which is not so disastrous for the economy, as hyperinflation, or, especially, zeroing. I am sure that the titans of lobbying in the face of "social" - pensioners and physicians, also had a hand in this. Both options are unlikely to please China - it is the main holder of US debt. Do not forget that the "price tag" of the upcoming attack on Syria has already been announced - from a billion dollars a month, and if it had reached the creation of a "no-fly" zone, the cost would have doubled. This moment could be compared with the Krylov fable "Swan, cancer and pike." And the “red line” is passed, Obama is silent. Kerry speaks out, McCain squeals, Hollande yelps. Five-day silence about the decision. David Cameron, who has so far been resignedly supporting all the decisions of Washington, announces that he will wait for the decision of the Security Council. The upheaval of the military in Egypt showed the seriousness of the split of the elites. Supported the military coup Saudi King Abdullah! Mutiny on the ship! No, well, no one argues, of course the Russian fleet, a diplomatic victory. But not first. The United States is on the verge of another fiscal cliff. And Obama got up! For the first time in twenty years, the military industrial complex opened its insatiable mouth to swallow another unscheduled billion dollars, and then the "red" is turned on. And these days, we have noticed that Putin did not sit in the Kremlin, but flew to Khabarovsk. He knew! He knew about the split. UK - when would we even see this? Anatoly El Murid in his interview to the Neuro World channel talks about a change in the US course. And about the rollback from the policy, which conducted finintern. For the past five years, Wall Street has been pushing the US national elite.

So, the situation is changing: look at the changing vector of American politics. The Saudis went against the "democrats", that is, outwardly it looks like - the Wahhabis support the change of Islamic Mursi! Nonsense. And this visit to Moscow of Bandar bin Sultan, the head of Saudi intelligence, seems to me in a different light. Nor is the desire of UAE investors to invest 5 billions of dollars in our infrastructure. Against this background, it was not unexpected for me that Hassan Rouhani’s speech about recognition and! Condemnation! the Holocaust, and the readiness to begin negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program. German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle noted the “constructive nature” of Hassan Rouhani’s speech. What does all this mean to us?

• A pullback in American policy from fomenting the global Islamic belt of instability is planned.
• Saudi Arabia is ready to move closer.
• Israel is rapidly losing influence on US policy.
• The world media is beginning to prepare the ground for “warming” of relations with Iran.

I am far from the idea that everything returned to normal. Even more, I am far from the thought that an “exceptional” nation will become better and kinder. I just think that it is urgent to “drive in a wooden wedge” and pour water over it in order to become wider. In other words, I hope that our president has extracted the maximum dividends for Russia from this split.
"The lobby is a flower that blooms only in darkness"
Author:
63 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. serge-68-68
    serge-68-68 30 September 2013 07: 53 New
    -9
    The author’s desire to kick the United States is humanly understandable, however: the identification of lobbyism and corruption is already wrong because lobbying (including in the form of actions that can be interpreted as bribery) is open action, which is also taken into account by financial authorities (taxes ), as well as by political and public actors when planning their actions in the political and social space. Corruption is not subject to any official accounting, making it impossible not only taxation but also effective forecasting and planning of actions. And this is the fundamental difference between the situation in the United States and the situation in the Russian Federation.
    Personally, I would not be against the official registration of the lobbying institution in the Russian Federation, which, in fact, has already taken shape semi-officially.
    1. a52333
      30 September 2013 07: 57 New
      17
      Coming soon. DAMA deals with this issue. And so, your will, but whatever is taken from his hands, at least do not take it, and if you take it, wash your hands. hi Yes, and in addition: if Stouretkin paid taxes from his "share". in your opinion, would it be easier?
      1. IRBIS
        IRBIS 30 September 2013 14: 05 New
        +7
        Quote: a52333
        Yes, and in addition: if Stouretkin paid taxes from his "share".

        And he most likely paid. Only here the payee is clearly not the state.
        Seriously, thank you for submitting the material. Good, informative article!
        1. a52333
          30 September 2013 14: 30 New
          +6
          I did my best. Pleasant is your assessment of the work done. hi
      2. smile
        smile 30 September 2013 16: 37 New
        +8
        a52333
        Hello!
        Ai-ai-ai, how could you write such a bad article, because all the prosralists (who yell that they are patriots and the most honest and smart people in Russia) know for sure that we have the most corrupt country, they told them about this in Uha Moscow and various honest people like a swindler and a thief in bulk and other tweeters, gozman, Schuster, Svinidze and Novodvorsky ... :))) And they all saw how, at night, Pu sneaks out of the Central Bank with a bag ... :) )))
        A few minutes ago I wrote a comment informing my opponent that we have no more corruption than in the USA, in which it has long been legalized. referred to lobbyism ... I close the thread and I see your excellent article .... And thank you very much for it, here! :)))
        1. a52333
          30 September 2013 17: 12 New
          +5
          Hello Vladimir. hi ... What is the trick, you look at the comments - our man. Well that is a patriot and in connections with anal was not noticed. You start reading the comments - mascara light. But that's what the work of amerovskie institutions is for, to plant doubts in our heads about our normalcy, and beliefs in our "exclusiveness" and cleanliness. Let's, somehow together, reveal "double standards" and break stereotypes. smile
      3. Papakiko
        Papakiko 1 October 2013 08: 57 New
        +2
        Quote: a52333
        Yes, and in addition: if Stouretkin paid taxes from his "share". in your opinion, would it be easier?

        Good afternoon.
        The article and comments of most comrades pleased the eyes and brains.
        I will be the promoter of Soros's "chicks" serge-68-68 and FAO_48E "u-u-convinced" electoral members in "good-light-clear".
        Example of flipping upside down: Yes ... in absolutely all seriousness and no jokes. But I am just an ordinary member. Believe it or not, but in AIPAC (as, by the way, in the NRA), besides the "money cats" and all kinds of Pelosi, Obama, and the McCains, there are lots of rank-and-file members, "infantry" so to speak. those in the States called grass roots. And "money cats" are like corps artillery (or higher), which will not enter the battle until the infantry, mortars, as well as regimental and divisional artillery, that is. until it becomes clear that there is a "Grassrut" interest in a specific issue.
        It turns out that until the cancer whistles, they do not cross themselves, but this is how things are done in Russia, and we are talking about lobbying interests in the "citadel-lamp" of the enlightened Western world. And there, without payment or guaranteed payment (in any form, nature, paper, credit support, debt cancellation, etc., etc.) no one will even beat a finger for an idea.
        Whoever pays a lady dances her.
        And this is not counting what I categorically correctly wrote about smile
        Quote: smile
        First, their special services totally control the population and very harshly suppress their all-intercessors, who call the people to take up the pitchfork. Secondly, no one supports them from abroad and does not stir up protest movements there. Thirdly, although Zadornov says that they are all stupid, but judging by the fact that they do not have so many interrogators as we do, the Americans have a sense of self-preservation. We do not have enough of this wisdom, look at almost any discussion of any issue, any problem, continuous "shoot, hang, cut .... sad and enviable.

        Comrades wrote sensibly and intelligibly about Lobism = corruption, and that’s all of them +
        I’ll just give a small example from life: http://tereshata.ru/index.php?newsid=82
        I will not write a megadoy cow ROSAVTODOR and all the mockery, worries about roads and safety.
        "Donkeys and Elephants" in the opposing sides write it down as the left hand and the right hand in "white-black" paint. Head and body are one.
        And most importantly, this is political business.
        For each counterparty (state), a set of measures is being worked out and the counterparty begins to be spent on counteracting these measures or vice versa can act as the customer.
        Thank you so much Alexey for your great work.
    2. bomg.77
      bomg.77 30 September 2013 08: 09 New
      +8
      Quote: serge-68-68
      Personally, I would not be against the official registration of the lobbying institution in the Russian Federation, which, in fact, has already taken shape semi-officially.
      Maybe our corrupt officials will someday be imprisoned, because they are criminals by law, but their criminals legally govern the Senate and Congress. Do you want this to flourish in Russia?
      1. serge-68-68
        serge-68-68 30 September 2013 08: 31 New
        +2
        "Maybe someday they will be imprisoned" - Don't you think that you have already answered yourself with such a semantic construction of the phrase?
        In just a few years, the children and grandchildren of Russian thieves in law (in the sense of state thieves) will rule Russia, and their fathers and grandfathers will be historically shaped as "organizers of the Russian land" who worked tirelessly for its benefit. And this hard work gave them the right to wealth. And from here, to paraphrase a well-known phrase: - who will plant the monuments?
        1. bomg.77
          bomg.77 30 September 2013 08: 43 New
          +8
          Quote: serge-68-68
          Maybe someday they will be imprisoned "- Don't you think that you have already answered yourself with such a semantic construction of the phrase?
          Our corrupt officials may or may not be sentenced, but their corrupt officials (lobbyists) will not be sent to prison, will such arrangement of the proposal suit you? You didn’t answer my question. Are you ready to legitimize the corrupt officials and call them lobbyists?
          1. serge-68-68
            serge-68-68 30 September 2013 08: 58 New
            -10 qualifying.
            I have already answered your question above. I repeat: "Personally, I would not mind the formalization of the institution of lobbying in the Russian Federation, which, in fact, has already taken shape semi-officially."
            And I wish you continued success in anticipation of when someone can ever be imprisoned. Especially against the backdrop of the unshrinking Serdyukov.
            1. bomg.77
              bomg.77 30 September 2013 09: 34 New
              +4
              Quote: serge-68-68
              I have already answered your question above. I repeat: "Personally, I would not mind the formalization of the institution of lobbying in the Russian Federation, which, in fact, has already taken shape semi-officially."
              And I wish you continued success in anticipation of when someone can ever be imprisoned. Especially against the backdrop of the unshrinking Serdyukov.
              From your answer, I realized that you are not against corruption itself, only a more modern name is needed for this process — lobbyism and tax to the state. sad If ours is not conquered to the end, then we will reduce it over time.
        2. 31231
          31231 30 September 2013 16: 46 New
          0
          In just a few years, the children and grandchildren of Russian thieves in law (in the sense of state thieves) will rule Russia, and their fathers and grandfathers will be historically formalized as "organizers of the Russian land"


          Judging by your logic, now the country must be ruled by the Menshikovs and Trotsky.
          Show me them?
    3. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 30 September 2013 09: 11 New
      +7
      Quote: serge-68-68
      open actions, which are also taken into account by both financial authorities (taxes) and political and public actors when planning their actions in the political and social space.

      You want to say pay taxes and sleep peacefully? A bribe, it is a bribe in Africa, it’s just that the USA has reached a special form of cynicism. Well, what can I say, as Zadornov said, in English there is no concept of the word CONSCIENCE. And there is no word, no conscience. Something like this.
      1. serge-68-68
        serge-68-68 30 September 2013 09: 33 New
        -4
        Would you look at the English-Russian dictionary? For the sake of general development and not to operate on Zadornov as a connoisseur of the English language. Conscience has long been one of the basic concepts in many sciences and, accordingly, is actively used by many, including English-speaking scholars.
        1. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 30 September 2013 09: 51 New
          +4
          Quote: serge-68-68
          Conscience has long been one of the basic concepts in many sciences.

          Probably the most basic in the science of lobbying ...
          1. serge-68-68
            serge-68-68 30 September 2013 11: 00 New
            -2
            Judging by the fact that you rely on Zadornov in your knowledge of the English language, I will not be surprised that for you there is only this "science" and Zadornov as its main critic.
        2. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 30 September 2013 11: 56 New
          +6
          Quote: serge-68-68
          Would you look at the English-Russian dictionary?

          consciousness, conscience, self-awareness, consciousness
          conscience humaine - human consciousness
          liberté de conscience - freedom of conscience
          conscience nationale - national identity
          awareness, understanding, awareness (sensibilisation, comprendre)
          conscience spirituelle - spiritual awareness
          awareness, sensibilisation
          conscience de marque - brand awareness
          the freedom of conscience; freedom of religion;
          HOW IS IT BLURED, DO NOT YOU SEE?
          Quote: serge-68-68
          Conscience has long been one of the basic concepts in many sciences.
          In what sciences is conscience a basic concept? If you cling to words, then be consistent.
    4. Sunjar
      Sunjar 30 September 2013 09: 30 New
      +7
      So you are not bothered by the thought that some organizations will officially promote the idea of, say, a further split of Russia into separate states: the Principality of Moscow, the Urals, Siberia, the Far East? For a group of homosexuals to promote their laws? A lot of things can be assumed here. Only because of the official type of activity from abroad, without any hesitation, huge funds will fall. As a result, projects with a large budget will be implemented. The Gomosyatsk lobby will definitely be pushed through with the help of the "developed world". This is acceptable to you.
      Just because it is legal does not mean that it is normal or even good. At one time, when America called itself civilized and advanced, they could legally abuse Negro slaves, execute them for wrongdoing, and in general slavery was legal. At that time, naturally, this was perceived by the majority as progressive and correct, but for many it was already considered savagery. Even in the middle of the 20 century, racial segregation existed in the USA, and this was also the norm.
      So is it worth taking such approaches to life for the good? What does all this bastard flow from the West. Yes, we have a lot of bad things too. But is it worth introducing any abomination as a norm, and even legislatively? It may still be better at the very beginning to recognize the negative influence of some destructive processes and interrupt their influence on us. After all, first of all, you need to change yourself for the better. It is precisely in our power, since not everyone can affect the life of our state at a higher level.
      1. a52333
        30 September 2013 09: 44 New
        +5
        After the 2012 presidential election in the United States, The New York Times reported that among the homosexuals of America, the winner in these elections outperformed his rival by a margin of 3: 1, and "that was enough to win nationwide." Perhaps this should not be surprising if you consider how quickly the number of “gay” people in the USA is growing: according to Gallup, in the age group over 65 years, 1,9% of Americans report homosexual orientation, in the group from 30 to 49 years, 3,2%, and among young people from 18 to 29 - already 6,4%. The Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, which supports the election of candidates who openly declare their “gay sexual orientation,” said back in 2006 that an unprecedented number of candidates supported by them were elected in the United States. at federal and local levels, including the first woman speaker in the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi. Altogether, more than 200 politicians “supporting the rights of gays and lesbians” already occupied seats in Congress and chairs of US governors. In late fall of 2012, an open lesbian was elected for the first time in US history, the 50-year-old Tammy Baldwin, who previously represented Wisconsin in the House of Representatives. Currently, the US legislature is preparing to legalize 30 types of "sexual orientation" that appear on the list of mental disorders of the American Psychiatric Association. Get ready, America! (Get ready, America!)
      2. serge-68-68
        serge-68-68 30 September 2013 09: 47 New
        -4
        Before writing anything, read the legislation on the regulation of lobbying and the fight against corruption in the United States (several acts). And then hit the keyboard. In the United States, a phenomenon of such a size as "Serdyukovism" was eliminated even before the adoption of the law on the regulation of lobbying.
        And minus all lovers: you would have pulled at least some theory, documentaries would have read before expressing their emotions, confusing the warm with the soft.
        I repeat once again: corruption and lobbyism are different concepts that mix only in the minds of the educators of the post-Soviet period of the development of Russia.
        1. Sunjar
          Sunjar 30 September 2013 11: 25 New
          +5
          I will express my vision, and perhaps not only my own, of these processes. These are really two different processes. Only at the moment, corrupt officials have to do everything secretly and with fear of being caught. Yes, it is not always possible to catch a thief. In the case of a legalized lobby, there will be nothing to fear. All received money in the interests of the "Customer" will be received legally. And it turns out that it doesn't matter if they harm the people or not.
          In the United States, there are fewer such phenomena (except you don’t need to tell stories that they don’t steal at all), since even without stealing through the lobby you can get up quite well. If this were allowed in Russia, the majority would do so.
          So, with my post-Soviet education, I do not confuse warm with soft. Because corruption and the lobby are different concepts: they never cease to be negative for society (the lobby, of course, can be useful, but only in the case of high moral qualities of the "customer")
        2. dmb
          dmb 30 September 2013 12: 14 New
          +6
          Sorry to interfere, but it seems to me that this is the rare case when the logic has changed you. Let's decide lobbyism is a positive or negative phenomenon in society. In the first case, I would like to hear what is its use not for the interests of individual corporations or population groups, but for society as a whole? The second one. What benefits will lobbying specifically bring to our society in its current state? Third, how does lobbyism combine with declarative, but nonetheless existing in existing legislation principles of social, national, racial and religious equality?
          1. serge-68-68
            serge-68-68 30 September 2013 12: 27 New
            -3
            For DMB: A serious question requires a serious answer (I'm serious).
            Lobbyism as a mechanism of influence on the adoption of power decisions has always been everywhere (including in the USSR). Because always and everywhere, both individuals and more or less organized groups will defend their interests. And in this sense, it can be a positive or negative phenomenon only by its results.
            But comparing it with corruption, it should be argued that it is better in the following positions:
            1. A lobbyist is always official (registered in the USA), open, an attempt to lobby secretly leads him to the "corruption" section. Is it relevant for Russia?
            2. Lobbying is accessible to all social groups - exaggerating somewhat - any person can officially lobby their interests. Is this relevant for Russia?
            3. The lobbyist by his target audience is perceived precisely as a person who defends someone’s interests, and not as a kind of lofty talker who soars your brain under the general slogan of the struggle for the happiness of the whole world, which forms the corresponding attitude towards him. Is this relevant for Russia?
            4. Open lobbying of someone’s interests allows other political players to take this activity into account when planning their own, rather than encountering unexpected decisions by unexpected authorities. Is this relevant for Russia?
            5. Lobbyism reduces corruption just because it thrives under the carpet. Is it relevant for Russia?
            I hope I answered your questions?
            1. dmb
              dmb 30 September 2013 16: 10 New
              +4
              With all due respect to you, you have not answered practically any of the questions posed. I will try to do it for you, or rather, I will express my point of view. First, lobbyism is evil, and the fact of its existence in the USSR does not at all make it good. In the USSR, there was a lot of bad things left over from capitalism, the notorious "birthmarks". And to overcome these "spots" overnight could only illiterate voluntarists like Nikita the maize. And only in words. You believe that by making hidden corruption public lobbying, you thus eradicate vice. (About the same Gavryushka Popov used to say when he was the mayor of Moscow, proposing to legalize the taking of bribes. The Governor was of crystal honesty. Second, if lobbyism is evil, then for our country today it is twice as evil. Duma, the Government and the Supreme Court lobbyists, none of us will be any easier. Eloquent talkers, our brains soaring also lobby interests. In this case, the bribe-takers listed by me. Proof of this is that a number of our fellow citizens here on the site, naively and sincerely believe that the Guarantor lives and acts in their interests and contrary to the interests of his immediate circle.I hope you understand that you are not such a lobbyist or citizen.
            2. 31231
              31231 30 September 2013 16: 59 New
              +2
              2. Lobbying is accessible to all social groups - exaggerating somewhat - any person can officially lobby their interests. Is this relevant for Russia?


              This doo, low-income blacks of Harlem and Latinos of the Bronx, he is simply registered with life.
              McIntosh probably their interests in the Senate are lobbying wink
        3. Ruslan_F38
          Ruslan_F38 30 September 2013 15: 10 New
          +2
          Quote: serge-68-68
          In the United States, a phenomenon of such a size as "Serdyukovism" was eliminated even before the adoption of the law on the regulation of lobbying.


          Where is the evidence Sergey? Are you familiar with the Halliburton case? This is just one example of what lobbying leads to in such an "advanced" country as the United States.

          Today in the US, the Congressional Committee on Government Reform will begin hearings on the Halliburton case, which was led by current US Vice President Dick Cheney from 1995 to 2000. Allegations of the vice president’s lobbying for the interests of his former company have already led some Republican officials to demand from President George W. Bush to pick up another understudy in the November elections. The president, however, did not succumb to this.
          Charges at Halliburton began to sound late last year. The initiator of the investigation of how this company and its subsidiaries without any tenders received profitable contracts in Iraq was Congressman Democrat Henry Waxman. First of all, it is about Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR, a division of Halliburton) receiving contracts for the reconstruction of the Iraqi oil industry worth more than $ 5 billion. Moreover, according to Congressman Waxman and his colleague John Dingell, Halliburton unreasonably overestimated the price of gasoline supplied to US troops in the United States. At the beginning of this year, the auditors of the US Department of Defense acknowledged the violation of accounting statements in KBR.
          Another Halliburton scandal involved food supplies for US troops in Iraq. Congressman Waxman claims that the food Halliburton regularly billed to the US government did not reach the soldiers.
          However, all these accusations date back to the period when Dick Cheney became the US Vice President and no longer headed the company, and there are no documents confirming that he lobbied for her interests. In this regard, his opponents unearthed a longer history related to the bribery of Nigerian officials in the late 90s in order to obtain profitable contracts in the gas industry. This case is being investigated by the Securities Commission.
          And finally, in the very last days, a new scandal has begun around Halliburton. Now the company is accused of the fact that in the 90s (that is, just at the time when it was headed by Dick Cheney), through shell companies registered in the Cayman Islands, it was engaged in illegal deliveries to Iran, bypassing American sanctions. The case has already been submitted to court.
          The avalanche of allegations at Halliburton has sparked rumors of Dick Cheney's possible resignation as vice president. Some prominent representatives of the Republican Party made calls for President Bush to pick up another understudy for himself in the November elections. However, the president himself put an end to such conversations last week, saying he was not considering such an opportunity.
          BORIS BOLKHONSKY; DMITRY SIDOROV, Washington
          Read more: http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/491772
        4. Ruslan_F38
          Ruslan_F38 30 September 2013 15: 27 New
          +4
          Quote: serge-68-68

          And minus all lovers: you would have pulled at least some theory, documentaries would have read before expressing their emotions, confusing the warm with the soft.
          I repeat once again: corruption and lobbyism are different concepts that mix only in the minds of the educators of the post-Soviet period of the development of Russia.


          Here is a plus from me, since you do not like well-deserved minuses.

          The line between the concepts of lobbying and corruption is very thin and, in my opinion, far-fetched, or rather invented by interested parties. Lobbyism is legal corruption. Liberals are ready to raise any essentially negative phenomenon almost to the rank of virtue - just to make a profit and get the opportunity to earn money, even on a crime. You will not argue that corruption is a crime?
          A student of the Soviet period.
        5. smile
          smile 30 September 2013 16: 48 New
          +3
          serge-68-68
          Hello.
          The Pentagon is regularly shaken by corruption scandals. The fact that there is stealing orders of magnitude more money is okay, there is simply more money there. But the fact that the scale of theft is no less than that of a stool (let it be remembered by night) is obvious. By the way, the same picture is in France and in other countries bawling that we are the most corrupt.
    5. Just
      Just 30 September 2013 13: 07 New
      +6
      You are just like children.
      The opinion that lobbying in the United States cancels corruption is incorrect. Corruption has not gone away. Nobody likes to pay taxes in the usa. The gray and black cash flow in the United States is even greater than in Russia. The drug market alone is generating billions in profits. And where do all these dollars go? As is well known, drugs are grown in Afghanistan. Then he, through the US military bases, is transported around the world. What are military services paid for from? Can you recall who and when lobbied the interests of drug dealers? Not? But the drug production and distribution system works like a clock. No corruption say? Oh well.
      1. Ruslan_F38
        Ruslan_F38 30 September 2013 14: 31 New
        +4
        Let's legalize lobbying, then same-sex marriage, then what? Apparently joining the United States - why waste time on trifles? Since we cannot defeat corruption, is it better to legalize it? Is it really incomprehensible that the West is good - for Russia it is pernicious and unacceptable. The line between lobbying and corruption is almost impossible to draw. Lobbying is an invention of a society in which liberal "values" are fundamental. What the Western world has led to the worship of these pseudo values, we have the opportunity to observe now - chaos, Satanism, anarchy, wars, etc. They are trying to implant this perverted idea of ​​life and life values ​​in Russia. We are different and we have a different path - it's time to understand this.
  2. a52333
    30 September 2013 07: 53 New
    +9
    Thanks to the moderators (I don't know who personally) for not being thrown into the trash can, and once again I apologize for the numerous blots. Well, I'm inconsiderate.
    1. sergey72
      sergey72 30 September 2013 08: 03 New
      +6
      Good day, dear Alexey! Thanks for the article, thanks to you, that mess from the episodes of lobbying in the USA has become more understandable for me. Respectfully... hi
  3. Strashila
    Strashila 30 September 2013 08: 05 New
    +3
    Corruption will remain corruption, whatever you call it, it will remain corruption if you even take taxes from it. Corroborating corruption is a good decision ... it's like Terry Prachett about the Flat World ... Thieves guild ... they only rob those who don't pay compensation in the form of legalized tax.
  4. FAO_48E
    FAO_48E 30 September 2013 08: 07 New
    +2
    This article once again reminded me of why I need to remain a member of AIPAC and NRA ...
    1. a52333
      30 September 2013 08: 13 New
      +2
      Seriously? Are you a member of AIPAC? Well, my congratulations to you, and admiration for the efficient work! Without a hairpin! hi good
    2. smile
      smile 30 September 2013 16: 59 New
      0
      FAO_48E
      Interestingly, what is the connection between legalized corruption and the activities of a public organization whose purpose is to influence the pro-Israeli course in US foreign policy? Are you hinting at your methods of activity? :)))
  5. FAO_48E
    FAO_48E 30 September 2013 08: 23 New
    +3
    Quote: a52333
    Seriously? Are you a member of AIPAC? Well, my congratulations to you, and admiration for the efficient work! Without a hairpin! hi good

    Yes ... in absolutely all seriousness and no jokes. But I am just an ordinary member. Believe it or not, but in AIPAC (as, by the way, in the NRA), besides the "money cats" and all kinds of Pelosi, Obama, and the McCains, there are lots of rank-and-file members, "infantry" so to speak. those in the States called grass roots. And "money cats" are like corps artillery (or higher), which will not enter the battle until the infantry, mortars, as well as regimental and divisional artillery, that is. until it becomes clear that there is a "Grassrut" interest in a specific issue.
    1. a52333
      30 September 2013 08: 42 New
      +3
      Collected information (for the article) for a week! You know, as we "dived" into the issue, the impression was that despite the colossal budgets of lobbying for the Arabs, Wall Street or the military-industrial complex, they simply, in comparison with AIPAC, bake Easter cakes in the "sandbox". Especially the Arabs. Well, you, well, straight hi - taking off my hat. If you have something to correct or supplement, I will gladly read your comment. You know from the inside.
  6. SPHINX
    SPHINX 30 September 2013 08: 25 New
    +3
    A little more time will pass, ordinary Americans will take out their "cudgel of the people's war" and go to fight with all the people - with their own native state. And the whole world will be fascinated by this action. Quoting our politicians: "These are the internal affairs of a sovereign state." America will devour itself without any help.
    1. eplewke
      eplewke 30 September 2013 11: 58 New
      +5
      An ordinary American least wants to get a club and go to war. He is better at tapping a hamburger in front of a telecom. The people of America do not care about their power. Everything suits them ...
    2. smile
      smile 30 September 2013 17: 09 New
      +2
      SPHINX
      Unfortunately, you have to wait a long time.
      Firstly, their special services are totally controlled by the population and very toughly suppress their all-enforcers who are calling people to take up the pitchfork.
      Secondly, no one supports their all-enforcers from abroad and does not stir up protest movements there.
      3. Thirdly, although Zadornov says that they are all stupid, but judging by the fact that they do not have so many interneur as we do, the Americans have a sense of self-preservation. We do not have enough of this wisdom, look at almost any discussion of any issue, any problem, continuous "shoot, hang, cut .... sad and enviable.
      1. SPHINX
        SPHINX 30 September 2013 19: 20 New
        +2
        Eplewke, Well, here's how the chip will lie, to be honest. They can chew burgers, and they can even beat up their faces. Yes, the control of their special services is strong, we can’t get around here, but you can’t keep track of every American, his thoughts.
        smile, yes, Americans are inert, but for the time being. And this time is just around the corner. America is at the bottom, the country is shaking from problems: the budget, bankrupt cities, political fails, and more. It is from that very sense of self-preservation that an ordinary American will go to destroy the main threat of his American dream, his bright future, and in his eyes this threat is not personified now by operetta terrorists, not Iran / Syria / Afghanistan / USSR, sorry, Russia, but relatives and such close statesmen who brought the country to such a state.
        The Americans, alas and hurray, are by no means stupid. Just a different mentality, which our people point-blank does not want to understand and accept. So we are mocking the "stupid people", and they are over the "crazy Russians".
  7. ReifA
    ReifA 30 September 2013 08: 25 New
    +2
    Thanks for the article, I did not know much from the described.
  8. major071
    major071 30 September 2013 08: 47 New
    +6
    In our state, corruption is unlikely to be legalized. The mentality is not the same. It’s better to steal secretly from us than to get legally. Excitement appears, drive, type, and figs you will catch me. And even more so, to pay taxes from such transactions, well, no, I don’t want to lose money.
  9. Kiliny
    Kiliny 30 September 2013 09: 32 New
    0
    центробанк рф пятая колонна фрс сша http://video.yandex.ru/search?text=%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0
    %B0%D0%BD%D0%BA%20%D1%80%D1%84%20%D0%BF%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%8F%20%D0%BA%D0%BE%D
    0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0%20%D1%84%D1%80%D1%81&where=all&filmId=oS0U6OY2UXI
  10. Kiliny
    Kiliny 30 September 2013 09: 39 New
    0
    Food for thought "Lecture on global corruption in the banking system" http://video.yandex.ru/search?text=%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F % 20% D0% BE
    %20%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9%20%D0%BA%D0%BE%D
    1%80%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BF%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B8%20%D0%B2%20%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%
    BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9%20%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5&wh
    ere = all & filmId = z0fV4Myks3M
  11. Russ69
    Russ69 30 September 2013 10: 03 New
    +3
    All this is a lobby, a legitimate bribe, and nothing more. As in this case, we can talk about some kind of crap, if laws and policies are built on the financial pumping of senators and firms associated with them.
  12. georg737577
    georg737577 30 September 2013 11: 36 New
    +2
    And the first caricature is very good. The artist did his best, the nationality of the lobbyists is easily recognizable ... And so - everywhere, "they work for the good of the Motherland and the people." True, they do not specify what kind of people and where their "Historical Homeland" is. Well, well, work ... But remember - "labor liberates" ...
    1. smile
      smile 30 September 2013 17: 17 New
      +1
      georg737577
      Maybe you should not use the slogans posted at the entrance to the hell of the Nazi concentration camp? Yes, and Nazi rhetoric, too, probably should not be replicated ... and the Nazis brought more grief to us and you than to Jews.
  13. soldier's grandson
    soldier's grandson 30 September 2013 11: 40 New
    +2
    here we have it and they have it, and they are no better than us, if you recall that we created this system with the help of amerovskie advisers and I got the impression that this is one common team
  14. olviko
    olviko 30 September 2013 13: 53 New
    +2
    Rather, AIPAC is the lobbyist for the US military-industrial complex and all those in America who profit from war. And Israel and its inhabitants, for the Jewish lobby in the United States, are only cannon fodder.
    "Two central Israeli newspapers, Maariv and Haaretz, have published materials that sharply criticize the actions of the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, which has launched a powerful campaign in support of Obama's intention to strike at Syria and urging congressmen to support a military operation against that country. AIPAC circulates a letter to the Senate. and the House of Representatives, which invites everyone to sign. The letter says: "Support the resolution allowing the use of force, and make it clear to everyone that the United States will not allow the most dangerous regimes in the world to own the most dangerous weapons."
    Authoritative columnist Shalom Yerushalmi writes in Maariv that the Jewish lobby on Capitol Hill, by acting in this way, is effectively dragging Israel into a war, from which the Israeli leadership is trying with all its might to keep aloof. Yerushalmi writes: “Attempts to link Israel's future with the American operation against Assad could do us double harm. First, AIPAC portrays Israel as the party sowing discord between the House of Representatives and the Senate and dragging Obama into the war, which is opposed by the American society. Second, Israel is doing everything possible to stay out of the conflict. and AIPAC is pulling us into this conflict by force. Lobbyists convince Congressmen that the military operation will help Israel, and thereby give Assad the legitimacy for the subsequent rocket attacks on Israel. They will eventually sit in Washington, and the Israelis - in the shelters. " Yerushalmi writes that one must also take into account the likelihood that a military operation will be unsuccessful. This failure will affect the situation in the United States, and the situation in Israel, and the situation of the Jews living in the United States.
    The influence of the Israeli lobby on Washington’s Middle East policy undermines the security of the United States itself, forcing it to sacrifice US national interests and security in its special relations with Israel. The relationship between the increasing terrorist acts against America and the uncritical support that Washington has provided for decades to Israel in resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is clearly visible.
    The American expert community believes that the nature of US relations with Israel complicated Washington's relations with the Arab world and provoked the wave of hatred that is gaining strength in the Muslim world. Israel has essentially become a strategic burden for the United States. We will cite just two examples. During the first war in the Persian Gulf, the Pentagon was unable to use Israeli military bases for fear of breaking up the fragile anti-Iraqi coalition and losing the support of a number of Arab states. Moreover, the Pentagon was forced to provide a battery of Patriot anti-aircraft missiles to protect its strategic ally. History repeated itself in 2003. Although Israel longed for the American invasion of Iraq and actively participated in its preparation, supplying falsified information about Iraq's nuclear-bacteriological arsenal, the White House was unable to use Israel's help this time. The United States feared a negative reaction even from those Arab states loyal to America that welcomed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime. What, then, is the essence of this 'strategic value'?
    Details: http://www.regnum.ru/news/1705317.html#ixzz2gMoUZqeE
    1. a52333
      30 September 2013 14: 10 New
      +3
      No, Oleg. In my opinion they sweep traces. Retire with military operations, as in the Iraq situation. They have already said that they are satisfied with the layout, i.e. Syria is weakened to the limit, and they do not need the complete victory of the jihadists. The goal has already been completed. And now only Iran remains for Israel. At the expense of the military-industrial complex - I agree, interests coincide. And at the moment they are working together. As interests diverge, AIPAC will begin to work against the military-industrial complex. In ATS, the interests of AIPAC generally coincided with the interest of the Saudis, but this does not mean. that it is a strategic alliance.
      1. olviko
        olviko 30 September 2013 15: 07 New
        +2
        I agree that Israel is happy to watch as the war weakens its enemy, Syria. The talk that Israel itself does not want to fight, but with someone else's hands - yes, that's please. Hence the indignation: "They will eventually sit in Washington, and the Israelis in shelters." AIPAC will count grandmas, and Israelis - coffins.
  15. Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 30 September 2013 22: 18 New
    +3
    The rollback of American politics from fomenting the global Islamic belt of instability is planned.

    I think this is a temporary rollback from a policy of controlled chaos. In 2014, the United States will leave Afghanistan. Unrest will be unambiguous. This means that we will have to bear the burden of countering drug trafficking and the penetration of gangs of groups in the countries of Central Asia. Our soft underbelly.
    In 2's, the main opponents of Israel in the region are destabilized, the real threat to the US strategic partner is postponed for 5 for years. This enables the States to address the issue of Asia-Pacific. To organize stagnation of the economy of the Middle Kingdom by manipulating oil prices. But difficulties arose here. The Russian Federation and China have concluded an agreement on the supply of hydrocarbons, thereby providing insurance to their economies. They are beginning to become friends in an adult way against the world hegemon, rallying the SCO countries around themselves, and developing cooperation among the BRICS countries bypassing the States. It is annoying and really annoying.
    3's, I do not believe that the States will leave Iran alone, which today is a real security threat to their strategic ally - Israel. The path may not be military: they simply will outbid the leaders, put the nuclear program under the control of the IAEA, support and lead to power pro-American rulers. Experience is available.
    Well, so that Russia "does not get bored", they will organize instability in the Caucasus, unrest in Ukraine, loud disclosures, etc.
    So, this is most likely a temporary respite before the new stage of the big game after accepting the US budget for the new year.
    1. a52333
      30 September 2013 23: 44 New
      0
      ABOUT! Alexander pushed the ball in the right direction.
      3's, I do not believe that the States will leave Iran alone, which today is a real security threat to their strategic ally - Israel.
      I'll try to spoil the wang. It seems to me that the financial international will not forgive the Saudis for "betrayal." And now there are graters with Iran so that the latter attack the Saudis.
      By this
      1. They will please Israel, which they want to remove from allowance (or at least cut back)
      2. Iran will be pulled in, not doing so, otherwise fulfilling the task. (They did it with Iraq. They pushed him to Kuwait, and then there was reason to accuse of aggression)
      3. They will punish the Saudis.
      The tasks are completed without loss of dollars or damage to the image.
      Without pretending, I guess
  16. FAO_48E
    FAO_48E 1 October 2013 04: 41 New
    +2
    Quote: a52333
    If you have something to correct or supplement, I will gladly read your comment. You know from the inside.
    About the money and the election campaigns. Naturally, only the hypocrite will deny the influence of money (more precisely, very big money) on American electoral politics. But, like everywhere else, every business has its own nuances and rules. First, as it may not seem strange, money alone in the States does not solve anything. We need money and a well-organized, and most importantly, a massive army of volunteers supporting their candidate for ideological reasons. The latest example is the 2012 presidential company. Romney - he’s a spilled money bag, which was supported by his kind. But no - nothing happened. And because you still need to know your voter, to know who he is and where he lives and to know where and where, how (and when) to invest money during the company for political advertising and for canvassing. Canvassing (from the word canvass) - bypassing the houses of individual potential voters by the army of Grassroots (see definition in the previous post) of volunteers who themselves work for free for ideological reasons, but who need a lot of money to mobilize. Obama figured it all out, and Romney simply tried to stupidly "pour" money into everything in order to compensate for the lack of volunteers, and as a result, by the end of the campaign, he was left with a lump in his pocket. Plus, not all of the big money comes from the "sharks of capitalism." Obama, for example, was able to figure out how to raise huge sums with the help of mini-donors (by local definition - somewhere around $ 250 and below). But this was done with the help of a gigantic preliminary work with the aim of finding the right potential donors and creating special models that process the demographic data of the population, the creation of which was bombarded by an army of programmers (partly for money, partly on a voluntary basis). A certain influence on the pre-election process was made by the back of the Supreme Court of 2010 in the case of Citizens United v. Fedizberkom, which allowed the creation of various private committees of political actions (Political Action Committees, or PACs) that support one candidate or another or another ideological platform, and are required to declare only amounts contributions, but not sources of financing, and having the right to collect and spend money on political activity as they please. The only limitation is that during election campaigns they do not have the right to become an official part and “directly coordinate” their actions with election campaigns. When this reshnye was published, there was mockery and doom on the topic that everyone ... Obama and the Democrats will be buried by "special interests," that the tycoons of this world (the same brothers Koch and Co) will roll out a money bomb and use it to solve all their problems ... As a result, everything turned out somewhat differently. As I wrote above, a national election campaign requires tremendous tension and the correct application of forces and means in a particular place at a particular point in time. And all these PACs and super-PACs turned out to be uncontrollable weapons. The fact is that super-ideologists sit at the helm in these offices, whose ideological position is much more radical and who often resorted to methods of political advertising, from which the employees of election campaigns, which they seemed to support, simply stood on end. As a result, as it turned out, their actions only pushed away the hesitant voters and turned out to be a disservice. And the last ... if you are completely stupid in life, then no millions of dollars will help you in any way.
  17. FAO_48E
    FAO_48E 1 October 2013 05: 44 New
    +1
    Quote: smile
    FAO_48E
    Interestingly, what is the connection between legalized corruption and the activities of a public organization whose purpose is to influence the pro-Israeli course in US foreign policy? Are you hinting at your methods of activity? :)))

    Why hint? ... Lobbying is a legitimate area of ​​political activity different from financing electoral companies. Hinting at methods is not necessary at all if you can talk about them in plain text. By the way, note: the more open and mass the lobbyist organization is, the more it is unsinkable.
  18. FAO_48E
    FAO_48E 1 October 2013 06: 08 New
    +1
    Quote: smile
    FAO_48E
    Interestingly, what is the connection between legalized corruption and the activities of a public organization whose purpose is to influence the pro-Israeli course in US foreign policy? Are you hinting at your methods of activity? :)))

    Yes, I forgot to add. If interested, here's the AIPAC site: http://www.aipac.org/. It says so: America's pro-Israeli Lobby (pro-Israeli lobby of America). Nobody hides anything. There, by the way, the methods of work of AIPAC are directly indicated.
  19. FAO_48E
    FAO_48E 1 October 2013 07: 08 New
    +3
    As for lobbying. A respected author wrote: “There is a“ Customer ”, and he can be anyone - an individual, a group of individuals, a company, a corporation or even a state ... The next link in the chain is a lobbyist firm. Let's call it“ Contractor ”Now we put it on the shelves And finally, the last link in the chain is actually the "Client" - the senator, the congressman. The customer directly with the client can conclude contracts of "purchase and sale" (this is called innocent "donation to the electoral campaign") quite legally and directly before the client is elected Then the "Executor" gets down to business ... The lobbyist also takes on the responsibility to form a positive image of the "Client" through the media."Here, in principle, several different things are mixed at once. Firstly, if the customer is a foreign state, then it can hire lobbyists as much as it wants to form an image in the media. Foreign states or companies can also hire lobbyists to influence the decisions of the state apparatus. and / or members of Congress in the field of politics and economics they are interested in. Only in these cases lobbying firms must be registered with the State Department as foreign agents acting in the interests of a specific foreign principal (state, political party, organization or corporation) and all materials by them produced (and, for example, inserted in newspapers) must clearly indicate that they were produced by a foreign agent at the expense of this foreign principal (if anyone is interested, here is a link to the original with detailed rules and exceptions: http: //www.law.cornell .edu / uscode / text / 22/611) What foreign agents can never do is do something like an e-campaign donation to any candidate. In this case, the FBI will sit on the agent's tail with all the ensuing consequences. Secondly, the mechanical scheme "Customer" - "Executor" - "donation to the electoral campaign" is also a guarantee that guests from the FBI will come to you. I strongly advise you to study the history of the fall of the former leader of the Republican majority in the House of Representatives, Tom DeLay (Tom DeLay) and lobbyist Jack Abramoff (Jack Abramoff). Thirdly, the most dull things are usually done when some narrow technical issue is being solved, which no one except a specific customer is interested in. Every politician in the United States knows that if a conandrum arises on some issue or business in which, on the one hand, there is a customer with a promise to "find mutual understanding" and, on the other hand, some public Grassrut office with a fairly massive membership intervenes in this matter, which in connection with this question will start bombing him (her) with e-mails, letters, and phone calls, then ... guess who wins ??? Here's something.
    1. olviko
      olviko 1 October 2013 09: 22 New
      +2
      FAO_48E, thanks for the interesting comment on the US lobbying system. If it is not difficult, could you explain some points that are not clear to me. 1. Is AIPAC registered with the State Department as a foreign agent, because you will agree that she is acting in the interests of the Israeli government. "It is no coincidence that, during one of Ariel Sharon's visits to the United States, he was asked how and how American Jews can help Israel, the then prime minister replied succinctly: “Help AIPAC.” Democrat Senator Ernest Hollings, already out of work, once remarked: “You cannot pursue any other policy towards Israel than the one proposed by AIPAC.” Press The AIPAC attaché explained the strategy: “We want to increase our support for Israel. We are with those for whom it does not matter what happens on the western bank of the Jordan, but who fear the Soviet Union. ”If so, then personally, it is difficult for me to imagine how some FBI agent would sit on the tail of AIPAC. Judge for yourself: In the United States, where 6 million Jews live, Jewish votes can be decisive because with a large number of non-voters and in the absence of significant differences between the two parties, an election victory can often be ensured by a 3-4% gap. In 1958, the Conference of Presidents of Jewish Associations authorized Chairman Klutznik to contact Kennedy as a possible presidential candidate. Klyutznik said bluntly: "If you say that you must, you can count on me, otherwise I am not the only one to turn my back on you." Klyutznik explained to Kennedy that he should say: Eisenhower behaved badly during the crisis, while Truman in 1948 was on the right track ... Kennedy followed this "advice" in 1960, when the Democratic convention elected him as a candidate. After his statements in New York to Jewish representatives, he received $ 500 for the election campaign, Klyutsnik as an adviser and 000% of the Jewish votes. during his first meeting with Ben-Gurion at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York in the spring of 80, John F. Kennedy told him: “I know I was elected because of the votes of American Jews. I owe you my victory. Tell me what I have to do for the Jewish people. " AIPAC received the signatures of 1961 senators in three weeks by May 21, 1975, demanding that President Ford support Israel, following their example. In 76, Carter received 1976% of the Jewish vote, in 68 - only 1980%, because during his presidency he sold F45 aircraft to Egypt, and to Saudi Arabia - the Avax system.
      Paul Finley, who has been a member of the US Congress for 22 years, described the mechanics of the Zionist lobby and its power. This real “branch of the Israeli government” controls the Congress and Senate, the President, the State Department and the Pentagon, the media, universities and churches. All means are good for the Zionist lobby, from financial pressure to moral blackmail, from a boycott of the media to the threat of murder. Paul Finley concludes: “Anyone who criticizes Israeli politics should expect painful and continuous repression and even loss of livelihood under pressure from the Israeli lobby. The president is afraid of them. Congress is inferior to all their demands. The most prestigious universities remove from their programs everything that is against them. The media giants and military leaders are inferior to their pressure. 2. What can the FBI and laws be against this lobby if it rules the presidents and congress. The financial and, therefore, political power in a world where everything is sold and bought is becoming increasingly defining.



      ,
  20. FAO_48E
    FAO_48E 2 October 2013 08: 56 New
    +2
    Quote: olviko
    Is she registered in the State Department as a foreign agent of AIPAC, because you must agree that it acts in the interests of the Israeli government

    Mr. Olivko, Thank you very much for your questions. I will try to answer them to the extent of my meager capabilities and in parts, although a detailed answer will pull on a not weak article. Is she registered in the State Department as a foreign agent of AIPAC, because you will agree that it acts in the interests of the Israeli government? Answer: No, not registered. And why? - But because it does not fall under the definition contained in the law on foreign agents, that is, in § 611 of the 22nd volume of the Code of Federal Laws of the USA (United States Code, or USC) containing the definition of foreign agents. Here is the link to the definition: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/611. The first reason for this fact is that not a cent from the budget of AIPACa comes from abroad. All donations come from ordinary people (such as your humble servant, for example), and not so ordinary US citizens. Some give more, others less, but somehow, all the money is of American origin. This fact alone takes AIPAC out of the need to register with the State Department. By the way, here is one of the most successful fundraisers for AIPACa, who at one time collected donations worth $ 10000000 for AIPACa with the help of 17000 parishioners of his church in San Antonio, TX, whose pastor he is:
    And here is the people from his church (i.e., not one of these people is by definition a Jew). These people are the embodiment of the massive American grass-roots support for Izril:
    Continued below ...
  21. FAO_48E
    FAO_48E 2 October 2013 09: 02 New
    +1
    The second reason is that, despite all the allegations to the contrary, AIPAC draws a very neat line that does not campaign for the Israeli government as such and does not engage in lobbying on an assignment or according to an order from it. Each time the permanent staff of the AIPAC was brought to that steppe (i.e. actions at the behest), and this really happened, serious scandals flared up in the States. Moreover, this was not due to the fact that the FBI was somehow interested in scandals, but because the Israeli government tried to use AIPAC to punch through it those issues on which it had strong ideological differences with the American Jewish community and other Jewish organizations, and in which AIPAC preferred (and prefers) not to go into. What AIPAC does is foster unbreakable friendship and ties between Israel and the United States, where supporting one for the other (and vice versa) is not a zero-sum game and is mutually beneficial (including the notorious $ 3 billion a year that all Israel's enemies trumpet) , most of which make a "lap of honor" returning to the United States and fueling the American R&D sector and, surprise surprise, the defense and science-intensive industries). That is why, unlike many other political organizations in the United States, during electoral campaigns AIPAC never declares support for candidates, whether it is a race for a seat in the House of Representatives, the Senate, or the White House. The same thing in Israel: AIPAC never crawls into election battles and (unlike a number of other American Zionist organizations) never prefers a government formed on the basis of a parliamentary majority from any party, be it Likud, Kadima, or Avoda. AIPAca's mission is to strengthen US-Israeli relations, regardless of who is in power in both countries. I don't know about your English language, but here is a quote from the AIPACa website describing its "combat mission": The mission of AIPAC is to strengthen, protect and promote the US-Israel relationship in ways that enhance the security of Israel and the United States. AIPAC's staff and citizen activists educate decision makers about the bonds that unite the United States and Israel and how it is in America's best interest to help ensure that the Jewish state is safe, strong and secure. Cooperation between the two countries is advantageous for both nations. AIPAC urges all members of Congress to support Israel through foreign aid, government partnerships, joint anti-terrorism efforts and the promotion of a negotiated two-state solution — a Jewish state of Israel and a demilitarized Palestinian state. And yet, AIPAC is not the only organization of its kind that is not a foreign agent. Organizations of American Armenians, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Congress of Russian Americans, etc. also do not fall under the definition of foreign agents for about the same reasons. What is the difference between AIPAC is the higher efficiency of actions, the ability to create massive grass-roots support among non-Jews across the country in almost all congressional districts, and thereby create an effective tool to influence both the House of Representatives and the Senate (but in somewhat lesser degree). But contrary to widespread tales, the impact on the executive branch where the upper thin layer of political appointees ends and the layer of career bureaucrats begins, this effect gradually decreases to zero (I mean the ability to influence the institution as such and not the preferences of individual individuals )
    Continued below ...
  22. FAO_48E
    FAO_48E 2 October 2013 09: 04 New
    +2
    And by the way, AIPAC never campaigned for the war in Iraq. As I mentioned above, AIPAC never creeps into domestic American electoral politics directly or gets into squabbles between Republicans and Democrats, and when Cheney tried to use his speech at the AIPAC Conference to enlist the support of the White House line on the Iraqi issue (and at the same time run into Democrats), then a very serious scandal erupted. Here is a description of what happened then: http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/31888/aipac-meeting-wasn-t-supposed-to-be-pa
    rtisan-but / ... AIPAC maintains American-Israeli ties, and works tirelessly to strengthen them, but unlike American right-wing Zionist organizations and such offices as Likud's American Friends, it "plays" only on topics where there is more or less massive consensus among US citizens sympathetic to Israel (which does not equal 100% unconditional support for Israel on all issues) and does not go to support the Israeli government where there are serious American-Israeli differences. Such issues include, for example, the imprisonment of Jonathan Pollard. For the same reason, AIPAC has never raised money for the construction of settlements in Judea and Samaria (the majority of American Jews who support AIPAC are slightly center-left and support Israel as a secular state; and the settlers are usually very religious with a bunch of corresponding cockroaches in the head). Finally, all this work experience did not go to AIPAC, because until 1963 no AIPAC existed, but what existed passed through the crucible of terrible failures and defeats, which first cost thousands and then millions of human lives. But more on that next time ...
    1. a52333
      2 October 2013 16: 55 New
      0
      Your comment surpasses the article in volume and information content. Thank. hi
  23. The comment was deleted.
  24. olviko
    olviko 2 October 2013 14: 30 New
    +1
    FAO_48E - thank you for the work done. Honestly, some of your points about the pro-Israeli lobby do not coincide or are directly opposite to what I read in other works, but thanks nonetheless. Finding an alternative point of view is always helpful.
  25. FAO_48E
    FAO_48E 2 October 2013 19: 39 New
    +2
    Quote: olviko
    FAO_48E - thank you for the work done. Honestly, some of your points about the pro-Israeli lobby do not coincide or are directly opposite to what I read in other works, but thanks nonetheless. Finding an alternative point of view is always helpful.

    Further about Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy, and in general, from where do legs grow, write? Or what I wrote to you is enough?
    1. a52333
      2 October 2013 20: 49 New
      +1
      Kennedy, and in general, where do legs grow from, write?
      Because of the two-dollar, as I understand it. In general, Mark, write an article, do not spray on comments. You have a good, lightweight style. good
  26. FAO_48E
    FAO_48E 2 October 2013 22: 41 New
    +1
    Quote: a52333
    In general, Mark, write an article, do not spray on comments. You have a good, light style. good

    Thank you so much. No kidding, it’s very nice to hear that (otherwise I wrote the last time an essay on the Russian language when I passed the entrance exams at the RCIIGA later in 1987 ...).
    1. a52333
      3 October 2013 07: 44 New
      0
      I read your other comments yesterday (outside the scope of this article). good
      about Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy,
      I'm waiting for the article.
  27. FAO_48E
    FAO_48E 4 October 2013 02: 17 New
    0
    Quote: a52333
    I'm waiting for the article.
    It will be necessary to strain. For me it’s a little complicated, because I don’t have a word of Russian, but in Russian I write everything through translit.ru. By the way, I’m on a different topic here, another citizen encouraged me to write an article on the topic of training officers of am. army because I have something to do with this topic ...