Though I laud Sanders for taking on this nag role, and likewise Sen. Corker for his principled stance agin from a totally different mindset, I took away a different message from this: it reminded me of all the polls that say people usually approve of their own Congresspersons, just think we should throw out all those other bums.

I actually looked over the list of amendments. Apart from a few blatant conservative ploys, a lot of them, it seemed to me, were for lobbies that Dem representatives would be receptive to as well. Example: you got something against the Native American lobby in Alaska?

It's against their supposed principles of fiscal responsibility. This is truly where it's "all sides do it." Further, the conundrum has always struck me: they may have their own principles but they are not supposed to be serving their own principles, they're supposed to be serving constituencies that vote for them.

People tend to think special interest lobbies are evil until it is their special interest. Lobbying is there because our government is so huge and complex. Not enough bureaucrats to understand it all. It's folly to even think the average Congressperson  can be knowledgeable enough to know all there is to know about how lawmaking will effect their constituents, even less so the average voter. And then it is often true that you get what you pay for in expertise; a volunteer lobbyist does usually have to spend their time working for living. Just no two ways about it, expertise costs time or money. And congresspersons will try to deliver/pander to important special interests that either turn over voting blocs or significant money or both.