[CrypticShift]

You here made a list of "American Lobbies" and down another list of "Foreign Lobbies," which is clever but desinginious.

He is talking about America's most powerful lobby FOR a foreign country. So this list is useless. Also, your second list only includes official foreign agents, while most pro-Israel lobbying is not registered as such (notably AIPAC).

[tptacek]

No he wasn't. He said "America's most powerful lobby". Not its most powerful lobby "FOR a foreign country". Words mean things!

[havelhovel]

I don't think that providing actual lists of top spenders is either "clever" or "disingenuous," but if you have a better way to empirically evaluate the claims being made about lobbying influence please share.

> He is talking about America's most powerful lobby FOR a foreign country.

I'm only interested in discussing the actual text that received (as of writing) 2.3 million views and is the subject of this thread, not your own revision.

> Also, your second list only includes official foreign agents, while most pro-Israel lobbying is not registered as such (notably AIPAC)

I was responding to a comment about the "Israeli lobby." Israelis are not Americans, which is why I addressed foreign spending. But since you're insinuating that AIPAC is a channel for foreign influence despite being a US organization with 3 million American members, changing its status wouldn't influence the list I provided, so I don't see the relevance of this argument to the larger question of lobbying power.