> You're conflating lobbying and campaign finance Most people take too narrow a view of lobbying. Writing a check for a $64K/plate dinner with Obama means you

> You're conflating lobbying and campaign finance Most people take too narrow a view of lobbying. Writing a check for a $64K/plate dinner with Obama means you've reached the pinnacle of lobbying: a casual after-dinner-with-drinks conversation with the president while looking over the twinkling lights of Silicon Valley and talking about what the administration's regulatory priorities should be. And remember Obama wants you and your pals to continue to bankroll the party; meanwhile, the two college kids with a shoestring self-funded startup that's about to get squashed by that new regulatory priority don't know what hit them. They can't afford $64K a year in salary, let alone for an Obama fundraiser. Also, why focus only on "registered lobbyists?" I recall looking into this a decade ago and the most influential lobbyist of the second half of the 20th century, MPAA's Jack Valenti, was not always a registered lobbyist. It's a very narrow legal definition. There are plenty of ways to get around registration, including having congresscritters arrange to call you instead of you calling them, making sure only 20% of your time is calling "covered officials," giving speeches and TV interviews, golfing with your pal who happens to be Senate majority leader where only 1% of that is talking shop, etc. One way to think about this is that congresscritters write the laws dealing with lobbying. Another definition of "congresscritter" is "future-lobbyist-in-waiting." It would really be a shame if they limited themselves and their bank accounts too much in the future. Right?