Let Freedom Ring

 Lobbying corrupts politicians.

This argument requires the belief that gang-rape undermines our democratic principles. Hopefully, everyone reading this article agrees.

Twenty-two year-old Jamie Leigh Jones claims Halliburton/KBR employees brutally gang-raped her while stationed in Iraq. Then, they locked her in a guarded shipping container. They warned her against leaving to seek medical treatment: "Don't plan on working back in Iraq. There won't be a position here, and there won't be a position in Houston," they said to her.

Trying to prevent these atrocities from ever occurring again, Senator Al Franken introduced an amendment "that would prevent the Pentagon from doing business with contractors who force employees into binding arbitration over rape and sexual assault charges." Meaning, the employees cannot sue or file criminal charges in public court. Under normal circumstances, this seems like an amendment teed up for broad bi-partisan support. Unfortunately, a full thirty Republican senators voted against the amendment; though, all four female GOP senators voted for it.

As Politico magazine astutely recognizes, "Republicans point out that the amendment was opposed by a host of business interests."

Among these Republicans is Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, who has vocally opposed the amendment: "It is a political amendment, really at bottom, representing sort of a political attack directed at Halliburton, which is politically a matter of sensitivity."

This is irrelevant. Even if the amendment is an attack, this does not change the content of the amendment. Foot Locker could ask athletic apparel corporations to abandon their child labor services, or refuse to stock their goods. If private corporations can dictate business terms, why can't the United State government? Here's why. Who does this amendment affect? Lawyers profiting from arbitration clauses, and defense contractors. Who elected Jeff Sessions? The legal services industry was the top contributor to Sessions' campaign committee, "donating" $369,710. Defense contractors: $141,700. With just over $500,000 contributed, of course the senator feels obligated to these industries.

Clearly, as the senators have shown us, we cannot expect them to place their Congressional duty to American citizens above their political obligations. In their defense, however, Republicans have claimed that it is not the government's place to regulate contracts (even though contract arbitration is part of the scope of the judiciary). They believe that arbitration should remain in the private domain, and the oversight of how federal funds are distributed should remain with the corporations, instead of the government. Furthermore, the government should continue doing business with these corporations, regardless of their questionable business practices. Unless those practices are telling a fake pimp how to set up a brothel for his fake skank. That's just out of line.

The problem here is not the senators. Obviously, none of the senators who voted against the amendment actually support the actions of the Halliburton/KBR employees. However, they are not free to exercise their own judgment. There are too many factors to consider, including whether or not they can raise enough money for another election cycle. Until the pressure of the American people outweighs the pressure of the lobbies, we can't expect our government to act on our behalf. So the question remains.  

Are there any benefits to lobbying? Feel free to comment online.