In theory, which group would be better at reducing the power of lobbying: Tea Party or Progressives?

Hey all, I was having a debate with a friend of mine the other day and would like to continue the discussion on here. I will preface this by saying that I have had a personal shift to the right as of late while he has become a devout progressive. I still don't identify as a Republican because of their social policies.

We both agree that lobbyists for the largest corporations hold too much sway over policy.

His argument:
Right wingers are too pro-capitalist by nature and will always be heavily influenced and backed by corporations. These politicians just want to line the pockets of their friends in the private sector in exchange for campaign contributions. Progressives want to stamp out lobbyists. If we take power away from the corporations and nationalize certain sectors(i.e. healthcare), we end most lobbying in its tracks.

My response and argument:
Progressives just want to stamp out the lobbyists they don't like and allow the lobbyists from environmentalist groups, etc. While I don't agree with pretty much anything in the Tea Party platform, they would be the best to stop corporate lobbying. The Tea Party, being a true "conservative" party by nature, aims to shrink and strip the central government of unnecessary powers and transfer it into the hands of local/state governments. By limiting the power of the central government, you then make lobbying itself extremely ineffective.

We went on for a while, but it boiled down to socialist policies vs handing power back to local governments. I honestly don't like the tea party, but I do believe that the more powerful the central government becomes, the more power lobbyists hold.

What are your thoughts?

 

Voters have more power and influence at the local levels.

 

Care to back your statements with factual evidence or links? What has Rand Paul said about lobbying reform and has does it differ from Bernie Sanders?

 

I never said that I liked the Tea Party. Nobody is going to argue that the Koch Brothers don't have their hands dipped into it.

Obama campaigned 8 years ago to change the way Washington did business. He was the pure outsider. We see that nothing changed and corporations still had access.

In order to mount a legitimate campaign, all candidates have to raise money to get your vote. This is just how the system has always worked. I'm not saying it's right, but all party politicians do it.

The question is about theory.

Which extreme is better to combat lobbying? Socialist policies or government minimalism.

 

From their webpage http://www.citizensunited.org/who-we-are.aspx
Who We Are
Citizens United is an organization dedicated to restoring our government to citizens' control. Through a combination of education, advocacy, and grass roots organization, Citizens United seeks to reassert the traditional American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security. Citizens United's goal is to restore the founding fathers' vision of a free nation, guided by the honesty, common sense, and good will of its citizens.

----------------
I'll go ahead and say again "In Theory" that "restoring our government to citizens' control" is exactly what the premise behind limited government is supposed to be. Limit the size and power of government and the corporations have less ability to shape and influence policy. That or you can just go the socialist route and let the government take over private sectors.

Where in the above Who We Are statement would you not want? It's full of crap and any sane person can see through the lies and that this is just a branch of the Republican Party (which is just as conservative as the Democratic Party), but in theory it's not all that bad. The crap is there to get people to donate.

The Tea Party is to the right as the Progressive Movement is to the left. Both say they want to put people votes over dollar votes... just in very different ways.

For those that say the Progressive Party isn't socialist is lying. They are promoting 100% employment while promoting crippling taxes/policies on corporations and wall street.

From DailyKos http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/31/1354954/-For-the-New-Year-A-New-Progressive-Movement#
- Limit political campaign contributions and expenditures.
- A “living wage” for all industrial workers.
- A social insurance program for everyone covering health, unemployment and old age.
- Government should create industrial research laboratories.
- One national health agency overseeing all aspects of health
- Federal regulation of all corporations operating in interstate commerce.
- Construction of a national highway system
- Impose a high tax on large inheritances.

Massive wage controls. Expansion of government influence in industry. Punishing/shaming the rich.

 

I don't care about winning an argument with my friend. The question (and I should have phrased it differently) is socialist policies vs minimalist government.

The Democratic Party is tied to the Progressive Movement. The Republican Party is tied to the Tea Party Movement. I'd rather have a bowel movement than either of their platforms.

 

How do you get rid of it? Why is this not just a ploy to get votes to expand the government to unforeseen levels? How is the progressive movement going to deal with the existing conservative dominance of the legislative branch? These conservatives are there to literally do nothing.