Mediaboss Marketing

These lobbyists were part of a network of climate sceptics dubbed the that effectively hindered direct climate action by Australia for decades. They provide a stark illustration of how lobbying, in the words of the OECD, can result in and steer public policy away from the public interest.

The sponsored passes can be issued to anyone as long as the applicant agrees to a security check and is approved by a member of parliament. Supplied

Of course, as the NSW ICAC has , lobbying is a central and legitimate activity for the functioning of a democratic system.

Regulation of how and by whom lobbying is conducted are, however, critical for it to serve its democratic purposes.

At the federal level, lobbying practices and regulation have undermined democracy in three ways. There is, firstly, the secrecy shrouding federal lobbying.

The makes a tepid gesture towards transparency. While it reveals some information about commercial lobbyists (lobbyists who act on behalf of third parties), it fails to fully disclose who is engaging in lobbying, particularly through its exclusion of in-house lobbyists (of companies, trade unions and other non-government organisations). It also fails to disclose who is being lobbied; the subject matter of lobbying; and the timing of the lobbying.

Second, there is the risk of corruption and misconduct. This invariably comes with secrecy and is compounded when lobbyists and lobbying organisations have made political contributions to the parties in power, as research by the detailed this week.

Illustration by Simon Letch

The risk of corruption and misconduct also grows in proportion to the number of former ministers and senior public servants who are employed in the private sector after leaving public sector employment (known by the technical term, post-separation employment). As Grattan Institute analysis , this is now a well-established pathway with more than a quarter of former ministers and assistant ministers taking up roles in peak organisations, large corporations, lobbying and consulting firms since 1990.

As the NSW ICAC has observed, conflicts of interest are at the centre of many of the post-separation employment problems. Public officials, including ministers, may modify their conduct, by going soft on their responsibilities or, generally, making decisions favourable to prospective private sector employers, in order to improve their post-separation employment prospects. When public officials are lobbied by former colleagues or superiors, prior (and possibly ongoing) associations can compromise impartial decision-making.

The third failure of federal lobbying practices and regulation is unfair access and influence. Secret lobbying, by its nature, involves such unfairness. When lobbying or the details of the lobbying are unknown at the time when the law or policy is being made, those engaged in that lobbying are able to put arguments to decision-makers that other interested parties are not in a position to counter simply because they are not aware that those arguments have been made.

Senator David Pocock is among those concerned about the lack of transparency regarding lobbyists in Parliament House. Alex Ellinghausen

Even without secrecy, unfair access and influence can result from lobbying through the creation of insiders and outsiders to the political process. The former consists of a tightly circumscribed group that includes commercial lobbyists and in-house lobbyists of companies, trade unions and non-government organisations. The latter is the rest of us. Not all are equal, of course, within the group of insiders and here the privileged position of business speaks with a .

Here again political contributions have a toxic effect. As the Grattan Institute has found, .

How can this parlous situation be remedied? We need to move away from what the auditor-general has characterised as a of federal regulation.

The Centre for Public Integrity has made five recommendations to strengthen federal lobbying regulation. First, a lobbying code of conduct should be legislated. This would bring the federal regulation in line with Canada, United Kingdom and most of the states.

The definition of lobbying should be expanded to capture all forms of influence, and lobbyist be expanded to capture in-house lobbyists. This adopts for the federal level a made by NSW ICAC which was by the previous (Coalition) state government.

Third, transparency should be promoted via proactive publication of ministerial diaries with additional details required in respect of meetings with registered lobbyists. Such arrangements are already in place in NSW, Queensland and the ACT.

Four, the regime should be overseen by a well-resourced regulator, with sanctions expanded to include fines, criminal sanctions and potential barring from government contracts for serious breaches. This recommendation draws from the sanctions available under lobbying regulation in Canada, United Kingdom, South Australia and Western Australia.

And finally, the post-employment separation period should be expanded to five years as in Canada and include all members of parliament rather than just ministers and ministerial staff

Robust regulation is essential for democratic lobbying. Without it, Australians will continue to be unable to trust that public power is being exercised in the public interest.

The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. .

Go here to see the original:
Canberra lobbying must be reined in. Heres how we can protect our democracy - Sydney Morning Herald

Excelsior Correspondent

JAMMU, May 7: JKPCC working president Raman Bhalla today said that recognition and protection of peoples rights and dignity as well as speedy justice is imperative for functioning of a healthy democracy.Addressing series of public meetings as a part of mass contact programmes from booth level to mobilize public opinion against wrong policies of BJP Govt in Gandhi Nagar constituency, Bhalla said, For the functioning of a healthy democracy, it is imperative that the people feel that their rights and dignity are protected and recognized. He said similar programmes will be organized through J&K to rejuvenate cadre for the various challenges ahead in J&K.Bhalla said expeditious adjudication of disputes is the hallmark of a healthy democracy. He said denial of justice would result in anarchy and destabilization of the judicial institution as people would seek a solution to their grievances through extrajudicial mechanisms. Peace shall only prevail, when peoples dignity and rights are recognized and protected, he said.Asserting that people want restoration of their honour and dignity, Bhalla demanded holding of much delayed Assembly Elections in Jammu and Kashmir for the empowerment of people.The people across J&K are feeling disempowered with the bureaucratic regime. On the other, the unnecessary delay in holding assembly elections has given rise to the feeling of alienation among the people which needs to be addressed at the earliest, Bhalla added.He said that basic needs of the people whether electricity, clean drinking water, road, basic infrastructure for hospitals, and educational institutions are quite irregular due to the poor response from Government. As the civil administration has completely collapsed, it is ample time to restore the confidence of the people who are feeling sidelined with no elected representative or Govt in place. The people in both the regions have similar demand to restore statehood and hold Assembly elections in J&K without delay, he said, and questioned that If elections can be held in Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat and others states and UTs in the country, why they are delayed in J&K.Bhalla said that the people want their honour and dignity to be restored with the restoration of statehood and holding Assembly elections.

The Leading Daily of Jammu and Kashmir , India

Go here to read the rest:
Protection of people's rights key to healthy democracy: Bhalla - Daily Excelsior

Israel is still a democracy, US Ambassador to Israel Tom Nides declared on Wednesday, even as the Biden administration has expressed concerns about the governments judicial reform plan.

Democracy is alive and well in the State of Israel, the ambassador emphasized.

Citing the fairly complicated time Israel has faced in recent months, Nides said people say to him Oh my God, things are on fire.

I say What are you talking about? Listen, the reality of this is, this is a living, breathing democracy in Israel, he said at an event at the Israeli Embassy in Washington promoting foreign investment in the US.

Nides remarks came after repeated comments from administration officials opposing the governments plan to change how Supreme Justices are selected and limit judicial review.

In February, the ambassador called on Netanyahu to "pump the brakes, slow down, try to get a consensus" on the judicial plan.

US President Joe Biden himself said he is very concerned, that Israel cannot continue down this road and said, in that context, that he will not invite Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House.

Earlier this week, Justice Minister Yariv Levin accused Washington of working in cooperation with [protesters against judicial reform], as you can see from the things said by the people in the government there, though he added that he thinks the opposition to the plan is genuine and not a conspiracy.

A State Department spokesman called the accusation "completely and demonstrably false," though US government officials have, in fact, voiced opposition to the reform.

Foreign Minister Eli Cohen pushed back against claims within his ministry that judicial reform hurts Israel on the global stage.

Cohen does not accept the evaluation presented in a professional report prepared in the Foreign Ministry, the ministry's spokesman said.

"The assessment in the report does not express the agreed-upon stance of all factors in the ministry and does not reflect the real situation," Foreign Ministry spokesman Lior Haiat said. "The report only reflects the opinion of the person who wrote it.

"From the minister's and senior ministry officials' many international contacts, we see a picture that is totally different from what is presented in the report," he added.

The secret report was compiled by the heads of the Foreign Ministry's Diplomatic Research Center and Diplomatic Planning Department, to assess the projected diplomatic fallout of the judicial reform, following messages diplomats received from abroad criticizing the plan.

The document, first reported by Walla! News, says that Israel's international standing has deteriorated in light of the debate on the judiciary and the makeup of its current governing coalition, because shared democratic values and a willingness to negotiate with the Palestinians are important for Israel in the West. It also recommends terminology for diplomats to use when discussing these issues.

Read the original:
US ambassador: Israeli democracy alive and well - The Jerusalem Post

Donald Trumps 2024 campaign for the White House is about to collide with an 1892 Supreme Court decision and a federal criminal trial rule, setting up a spectacular legal clash that the framers of our Constitution could never have imagined.

As the subject of two federal grand jury investigations, Trump faces the prospect of running his presidential campaignwhether as the Republican Party nominee or an independentfrom the defense table in a federal courtroom in Washington, D.C.

If youve followed Trumps legal tactics closelyas I have for decadesgaming out this situation isnt difficult.

Trump will ignore his right to a speedy trial starting within 100 days of any federal indictments. Instead, following the advice taught by his second father, the notorious lawyer Roy Cohn, Trumps strategy would likely be to delay using every tactic his legal team can conjure.

Trumps lawyers would also almost certainly argue that any criminal trials should be delayed until after the 2024 election, leaving Trump free to pursue the presidency.

Should these delays tactics succeed, and were Trump to regain the White House, he could then pardon himself and his allies for any federal crimes they may have committed.

That, in turn, would surely be challenged in a case that the Supreme Court, three of whose nine justices Trump appointed, ultimately would have to decide.

The question that would be presented to the high court: Can a president pardon himself? And should the high court invalidate a self-pardon, a new question would emerge: Can Trump be tried while in office?

The answer to one further question is clear. Were Trump to be convicted of any felony charge and regain the White House, could he serve as president?

The answer to that is yes.

Nothing in our Constitution would prohibit a felon, even one serving time, from holding the office of president. However, Trump could be removed were he impeached by the House and then convicted by 67 senators. Whether those votes could be mustered is unknowable today.

The only exception would be if Trump were convicted of seditious conspiracy. That law makes it a crime for two or more persons to conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof

Anyone convicted of seditious conspiracy is barred from ever holding public office, as Couy Griffina New Mexico county commissioner and convicted Jan. 6 insurrectionistlearned last September when he became the first official removed from office under this law since the Civil War.

Amid this unprecedented legal turmoil, Trump is currently the odds-on favorite to win the GOP presidential nomination a third time. Arguably, the prosecutions have only deepened Trumps relationships with the party base and forced his would-be rivals, like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and former Vice President Mike Pence, to attack the integrity of the cases built against him.

While Trumps legal defensesand his desire for the immunity and powers of the presidencywill be under the microscope like never before, those attempting to hold him accountable will face enormous scrutiny themselves.

Few will face more pressure than special prosecutor Jack Smith. Appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland last year, Smith has two federal grand juries investigating Trump. One is looking into national security secrets he stole and then had his lawyers deny he possessed; the other is investigating Trumps role in inciting the failed Jan. 6 coup.

Each day that passes without Smith asking grand jurors to return an indictment, known as a true bill, it heightens the issues over a criminal trial delay and Trumps desire to campaign freely.

The federal judges assigned to try these cases would also face enormous pressure over how to resolve conflicts between Trumps campaign, and potentially his second presidency, and the absolute rules governing the conduct of felony trials in federal court.

At issue is Rule 43 in federal criminal procedure, which requires that felony defendants attend their trials.

Trump skipped out on the trial now underway in federal District Court in Manhattan, in a case brought by the journalist E. Jean Carroll. In her 2019 memoir What Do We Need Men For? A Modest Proposal, Carroll wrote that, in 1995 or 1996, Trump raped her in a lingerie dressing room of the Bergdorf Goodman department store across the street from Trump Tower in Manhattan.

Trump called Carroll a liar and labeled her accusation a hoax. Carroll then sued for defamation. Because the trial is civil rather than criminal, Trumps attendance was optional.

Under Lewis v. United States, an 1892 Supreme Court decision which formed the basis for Rule 43, Trump would be required to attend every minute of his trial.

The high court held in Lewis that a leading principle that pervades the entire law of criminal procedure is that once an individual is indicted nothing shall be done in the absence of the prisoner in felonies it is not in the power of the prisoner, either by himself or his counsel, to waive the right to be personally present during the trial.

That standard applies even if Trump were free on his own recognizance or on bail.

If he tried to boycott the trial, he would be arrested and held in custody until the trial ended.

A similar attendance rule applies for criminal trials in New York, where Trump was indicted last month on 34 felony counts connected with hush money paid in 2016 to Stephanie Clifford, better known as the porn star Stormy Daniels. The mandatory attendance rule also applies in Georgia, where Trump is under investigation by Fani Willis, the Fulton County district attorney.

So, would Trumps already announced campaign enable him to delay a trial? If he succeeds and becomes president again, would that further delay any proceedings? What if he pardoned himself?

I put the first question to Daniel Richman, a former federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York who now teaches at Columbia University Law School. There certainly is no built-in extenuating circumstance exception for such things as running for president, Richman said.

Richman said it is fair to assume that should Trump be indicted, the prosecution would press for a speedy trial and presumably has made efforts to accommodate an accelerated discovery schedule for turning over evidence that might exonerate him.

But even if the prosecution immediately turned over so-called Brady materialnamed for a 1963 Supreme Court decision requiring prosecutors to disclose exonerating informationit could still potentially help Trump win delays.

A prosecutorial push for speed may not be accommodated by a court and the discovery materials that might be speedily turned over may be of the sort that allow defense counsel to reasonably say, I need time to look through all of us, resulting in delaying a trial, Richman said.

Those are basically the same points I made this week to my students at Syracuse University College of Law, where Ive taught legal principles since 2009.

The federal judge assigned to any Trump criminal trial would for sure be aware that Trump has dangled pardons in front of potentially problematic witnesses, has pardoned allies for federal crimes, and has said he believes he has the power to pardon himself.

Indeed, its entirely possible that Trump pardoned himself during his last days in office but made no public disclosure. He might have done this in a written document that he alone holds. Trump might also assert that, as with his claims that he can declassify national security documents by just thinking it in his mind, that he issued a mental self-pardon.

Its hard to imagine the federal courts upholding a pardon that exists only in Trumps mind.

However, if Trump produced a signed pardon, it would surely prompt litigation over whether a presidents almost unfettered power to grant pardons extends to the president himself.

Were the Supreme Court to uphold a self-pardon, it would be a serious challenge to the rule of law. Why? Because a president could go around shooting people, as Trump said he could do on Fifth Avenue without losing a vote, and never be prosecuted for murdermuch less any of what our Constitution calls high crimes and misdemeanors.

For anyone who wants to hold the title of President of the United States while behaving as Americas unaccountable dictator, that would be a dream come true.

Follow this link:
How Trump's Legal Jeopardy Will Test American Democracy - The Daily Beast

To highlight the power of youth in the areas of democracy and governance, Govind Ballabh Pant Social Science Institute (GBPSSI) in collaboration with the union ministry of youth affairs and sports and the Research and Information System for Developing Countries is going to conduct a brainstorming workshop at GBPSSI campus on Monday.

The brainstorming workshop is part of activities of Youth20 engagement group under the overall framework of G20, stated GBPSSI officials.

GBPSSI director Prof Badri Narayan will deliver inaugural speech while Praveen Patel, MLA, Phulpur will address the gathering as special guest, they added.

The brainstorming session will focus on Youth participation in legislation and policy making, Institutionalisation leadership and governance training, and Youth involvement in community governance.

Young politicians, entrepreneurs, students and scholars from Prayagraj will attend the event. Insights from the session will be captured in a rapporteur report which will be shared with Youth20 secretariat, said Prof Narayan.

Youth 20 (Y20) is an official consultation forum for youth from all G20 member countries to be able to have dialogue with each other. Y20 encourages youth as future leaders to raise awareness on global issues, exchange ideas, argue, negotiate, and reach consensus.

Read the original:
Brainstorming on Shared future: Youth in democracy, governance at GBPSSI - Hindustan Times