The issue isn't how the payment is characterized. The issue is how the quid pro quo is characterized. Not to mention the simple fact that access is proportional to influence, and money is proportional to access. But since those proportional relationships don't come with a money-back guarantee, or a tax-deductible receipt, they don't really look like the narrow definition of payment that the courts would be interested in.
Lobbyists: 1) get issues on politicians' radars; 2) provide them with data, arguments, and sample legislation to advocate for a position; and 3) convince politicians that particular measures will be favored by relevant constituencies.
It's almost never going to be the case that a lobbyist will convince a politician to support a measure they wouldn't otherwise support. Politicians all have agendas and preconceived notions. The most important thing lobbyists do is help politicians filter through he universe of proposals and convince them that particular ones fit within their preconceived worldview and platform.
I think many people have a hard time even conceiving that politicians could support big companies without getting some sort of kickback or campaign contribution for doing so. But a politician's first, second, and third top priorities are jobs. Big companies control the jobs, and for better or worse what's bad for big companies is often, at least in the short term, bad for jobs.
I upvoted because it's an interesting perspective, but I'd like to know where you get this information from. Is it a first-hand account? It makes sense that jobs are a priority and that politicians prioritize helping companies. And I'm sure that "a lobbyist will convince a politician to support a measure they wouldn't otherwise support" happens at least some of the time, but I don't have a sense of how frequent that is vs. legalized bribery and regulatory capture.
And besides, if a politician passed a bad law thinking he did a great thing for society because corporate marketing was very convincing, does that make a difference?
My wife was a lobbyist. I wish I had quantitative evidence, but my impression is that lobbying is mostly just reinforcing favorable narratives. I think phrases like "legalized bribery" and "regulatory capture" are thrown around casually without much supporting evidence.
As to your last point: what is a "bad law?" Does anybody really have any idea what works and what doesn't? Did the repeal of Glass-Steagall cause the 2008 crash? We really have no idea. Did NAFTA leave consumers better off? Who knows? Do minimum wages increase unemployment? Experts disagree. It's effectively impossible to determine what impact laws really have, especially on the economy. Laws and policies aren't judged as "good" or "bad" except in history books. They're judged based on whether they fit into ideological frameworks and prevailing narratives. And voters are part of that. They want politicians who will vote for laws that fit their preferred narrative.
In the same way that an automobile company advertisement on broadcast television may increase the number of potential customers visiting dealerships to buy a new car.
The advertisement makes you want that car, or at least makes you aware that it exists, which influences your behavior in the future, when you are actually able to buy.
The lobbyist never knows if the investment of time and effort is successful until after the vote is cast, and has no recourse whatsoever if is cast the "wrong" way. The car company can't demand a refund for its advertising if not enough extra people want to buy their cars. Watching the ad does not obligate anyone to buy. Lobbying does not obligate anyone to vote in a particular way.
Of course, as the lobbying game is played in multiple iterations, it is certainly a winning strategy to "stay bought". If a lobbyist invests a lot of effort into getting you to change your mind, they will likely continue to do so if you voluntarily act to make that investment pay off every time. There doesn't need to be a legally recognizable quid pro quo. The implicit deal is that consistent cooperation will be rewarded consistently.
By providing data and arguments? The idea of a lobbyist is that you hire someone to go to Washington and suggest the politicians do what you think is the right thing.
