Maybe the writer has seen too many movies on the Mafia or read too many books on the same subject, but the Democratic lobbyist the reporters attempted to interview, Ickes, I think, looked and walked like an ex-enforcer for the syndicate.

Then, of course, the man pretty well reinforced this idea when he asked the cameraman, "Do you want me to hit you?" while drawing back his fist and rapidly approaching the man trying to film the interview.

The writer thinks maybe this action was most indicative of the character of the lobbyist. It was a most despicable action made even more so by the realization the man may be representative of many lobbyists as he is one of the most effective.

Because of the action of threatening the camera man, the writer wonders if Ickes is so effective because he makes his target politician "an offer he can't refuse."

At any rate, an extremely bad taste was left in the writer's mouth. His behaviors caused the writer to consider lobbying and lobbyists along with ramifications to the American public.

The first question that came to mind is why any organization represented by a lobbyist would have retained the man in the first place.

The second question is why is lobbying allowed?

The third is whether we are living in a democracy if lobbying affects the political system and how a representative a votes on a particular bill?

The fourth is why isn't lobbying outlawed and all lobbyist prevented from any contact with any person in the position of voting on matters that affect all of America?

The writer attempted to logically answer these questions without any specific dollar amounts as to who donates what to who. Afterall, do we really know what goes on behind the scenes, e.g., as on the Democratic yacht shown on the above newscast? Or, maybe on a park bench or in a lounge over drinks?

I.e., there are records of who or what organization contributed money above the board. But, do we know for certain that is all the money (including that in the form of perks) exchanging hands? The writer thinks not.

And, keep this thought in mind: It is hard to find a pauper amongst those who have been in Congress many years. The reality is successful politicians leave office rich, at least by middle-America standards.

This isn't an allegation that all politicians accept favors and money from lobbyists, but one must consider the end result, wealth, of being a professional politician. That comes from someplace besides individual investment portfolios.

With the likelihood of wealthy businesses or organizations wanting to buy politicians' votes, it stands to reason politicians have a very high potential of taking money and/or perks. Normally, if it snows, one can expect to see a cloud but, occassionally, it snows without a cloud in sight. Meaning just because a "contribution" isn't reported, doesn't mean it wasn't there.

Why would a wealthy source need to retain a lobbyist for the explicit purpose of approaching a political figure? Or, to approach the politician himself, as a couple of people were trying to if they could get on the boat?

One of the people waiting stated that he was contributing a million dollars and couldn't even get on the boat. Guess that should tell you how much wealth was represented on the yacht. What was their purpose of being or wanting on the yacht? (Just a thought, but did the taxpayers pay for the huge, multi-decked yacht? Hmmm.)

The first reason for huge contributions is the wealthy source wants to affect the way a politician is going to vote on certain bills. That is the reason for donating and letting the politicians know where the money is coming from.

Let's get real. A person doesn't donate huge sums of money without expecting something in return. Every person in this nation knows that money buys power, and, without money, there isn't any power.

Currently, how many poor people are in Washington or your state capitol working with applicable legislators? They can be counted on less than one finger, so it is obvious the poor have little power over legislation and legislators, isn't it?

The second is that the wealthy person or organization wants a bill introduced and passed that is going to affect his own personal interests in a positive way. Hence, unions will donate to the party most receptive to unions goals, not for the purpose of assuring the average American will benefit from proposed or inacted legislation, but, instead, for the union's self-serving interests.

Hm, there is a third reason. What of the threat of NOT contributing or contributing to more receptive people or the more receptive party and working to get those people or party in power? This is quite conceivable in our extremely corrupted political system.

Then, of course, there is the possibility of a fourth reason for retaining a lobbyists, an actual physical threat to politicians and/or their families. Do any of you believe that it couldn't go on?

What of paying the politician directly, but, out of necessity, totally behind closed doors? Do any of you believe this possibility, and maybe 'probability', doesn't exist?

When one observes how well politicians live and the degree of wealth accummulated, especially the people who retire after many years in Congress, it is very easy to believe in a "behind-closed-doors" kick-back system.

Stating a problem without a possible solution is akin to the futility of complaining without any intent to correct. So, can there be a solution the effects that lobbyists can have on the governing of our country? Sure, there is.

Make lobbying absolutely against the law with the (might be a bit drastic in some people's minds) penalty for such actions, when the politician\s involved personally gain from the lobbying they were receptive to, life imprisonment in a 'lock-down' prison with no hope of parole. Likewise, any civilian, such as the lobbyist and the person retaining him, should receive like-treatment.

You see, Ladies and Gentlemen, the very concept of lobbying denies the possibility of being a Republic. Why, you might ask. It is simply the fact that a Republic is, by definition, governed by the masses through their representation, not a wealthy few.

Therefore, if other than the masses direct legislation and determine legislation through their financial control over legislators, then it is impossible for the country to be a Republic.

(In case the reader missed it, the answer to the fourth question is that money buys power, money is power, and corrupt politicians want to keep the system as is.)