Banning them from lobbying would also be a welcome change. How can a utility with a monopoly on services be allowed to buy favorable laws in government?
"Quid-pro-quo bribery isn't the issue. The corrupt politicians who accept bribes are the issue."
This isn't how we do legal policy. We wouldn't say "all bribery laws are gone, we'll just make sure that we don't have any politicians that accept bribes some other way."
They're not corrupt because of lobbying, they are already corrupt and take advantage of lobbying.
There are things that could be done but the people in office making the laws are not interested, and the population is too apathetic/indoctrinated to make the correct choices.
Yes you can, even if you don’t want to restrict lobbying on free speech ground you can place donation caps and increase transparency requirements which would both limit the power of corporate lobbying
You can end donations entirely, and disqualify candidates who accept them. The government can put up a website where you can get information about candidates, send everyone bundles of information, schedule debates in a standard format with clear rules for participation, and throw events where candidates can give speeches, and distribute those speeches to everybody who wants them. You can give everybody a day off to vote.
The reason government is corrupt is because we want it to be corrupt. If it weren't corrupt, nobody would pick this endless shower of dynastic creeps.
There is no good democratic outcome for $175K a year jobs that cost half a billion dollars to apply for.
> The reason government is corrupt is because we want it to be corrupt.
The reason government is corrupt is because it is corrupt, and corrupt governments don't give their citizens an option for "stop being corrupt" in the ballot.
> There is no good democratic outcome for $175K a year jobs that cost half a billion dollars to apply for.
I would argue that this is a reason to reform our electoral system rather than just resign ourselves to a corrupt system. If it didn’t cost half a billion dollars to become a politician and the pay better reflected the job responsibilities (along with other reforms) we’d probably see less corruption
Donation caps and transparency aren’t bans. Our system is based on representatives acting on behalf of constituents. When a constituent contacts their representative that’s lobbying. Lobbying is the system. So you can’t ban it.
The issue is that lobbying has two different meanings. The literal meaning is trying to influence politicians but the common usage refers to when companies and special interest groups spend hundreds of millions of dollars on donations and advertising to get politicians to pass laws that benefit them. The first meaning, which is what you’re talking about, is fine. But the second meaning, which is what people mean when they talk about banning lobbying, is the opposite of democracy.
Yes, I've seen this firsthand. In some cases, you can buy a Federal Senator's vote for as little as $10k. Using this number on a larger scale, corporations can buy the entire senate for as little as $1 million. The ROI potential on a $1 million investment that nets you complete legislative control in your desired area is just insane.
Granted, these deals are often backended and include a job promise down the road or some similar under-the-table stuff (jobs for relatives, etc), but I'm continually shocked by how cheap our legislators are. You'd think if a legislator knows a corporation is poised to make several billion dollars if a piece of legislation is passed, the legislator should demand a lot higher than $10k.
Why? What is the benefit to the public good of allowing corporations to use their massive resources to shape legislation to benefit them at the expense of the general public?
Generally industries are much better than random politicians at predicting the consequences of rules. Obviously it isn’t good if the rules being made are entirely in the interests of incumbents, but it’s also bad if the rules don’t make sense or ignore the realities of some industry or technology. Even ignoring lobbying, you see regulators reaching out for comments from industry about new rules.
Though perhaps lobbying (as practiced or in general) should still be considered inappropriate.
> Generally industries are much better than random politicians at predicting the consequences of rules
This is true but when people are talking about restricting lobbying the kind of lobbying they want to restrict isn’t companies saying “hey this policy isn’t good for us”. It’s companies spending millions of dollars on donations and advertising to force politicians to make laws that benefit them. It’s possible to restrict the second kind without impacting the first kind, for example by implementing spending limits.
The article linked at the top of this thread is the former thing. But maybe that’s not relevant.
Aren’t the rules on donations made by companies pretty restricted in the US? Isn’t it normally that companies persuade their employees to give to some company pac (as a deduction from their paycheck) and that pac then makes maximum campaign contributions to various politicians. (The limits on both contributions to the pac and to campaigns are pretty small. On the order of $5k. It seems unlikely to matter much to a politician but maybe they do care).
Maybe you’re not talking about the US or maybe I’m wrong or there is some other mechanism I don’t understand
> It’s companies spending millions of dollars on donations and advertising to force politicians to make laws that benefit them
They aren't forcing. They'd just rather take the money than not. If politicians weren't corrupt, we'd only have the first kind of lobbying, as no one will spend money on something that doesn't work.
Industries are also better with regard to conflict of interest in that there is no conflict, they just have interests which are entirely separate from those of the public.
> Even ignoring lobbying, you see regulators reaching out for comments from industry about new rules.
Yet somehow the only times those "comments from industry" are taken into consideration in a meaningful way is when they come from large businesses with deep pockets or astroturf consumer interest groups funded by large businesses with deep pockets. Genuine grassroots consumer interest groups rarely leave a mark.
Because individuals have a Constitutional right to petition their representatives and that right doesn't magically disappear when they decide to do it as a group of individuals?
People should be able to say what they want. They shouldn't be able to pay politicians for favorable treatment. If that's somehow required for free speech, we should get rid of free speech.
I think the problem here is that people don't know what lobbying means.
It doesn't mean paying politicians.
Lobbying is simply that - petitioning your representative for change (or no change). No money changes hands, you literally just get time with your representative to argue your case.
When a company spends $1M on lobbying, it's $1M given to a lobbying firm to put together a strategy and a pitch to representatives.
If you want fund raising laws to change, then say that.
I think the problem here is that people don't know what lobbying means.
I think many people are aware of what lobbying means. They're just using standard motte-and-bailey tactics to make it seem like they're defending something innocuous (petitioning the government) while they're really defending bribery and corruption.
> it's $1M given to a lobbying firm to put together a strategy and a pitch to representatives
The Strategy: Hey $senator, wouldn't you like $500,000 donated to your re-election campaign? Of course, we would need to know that you share our commitment to Clean Coal!
(I assume the lobbyists themselves get to pocket their share of the $1M, but don't know what the markup is on bribes)
Not a poli sci expert so forgive if this is naïve, but if I were forced to make the policy my first proposal would be:
• Entities which receive more than half their funding from any non-human "persons" (corporations, other legal entities) or where more than 50% of the funding comes from the top 500 donors, or who have fewer than 10,000 unique donors (in the past 4 years) overall, cannot provide any funds to any candidate's campaign, nor run ads mentioning, hinting, or suggesting any candidate or party, nor any other BS shenanigans astroturfing PACs legally do today.
• The rest of the entities who don't fall under the above, still cannot make contributions, but can run ads, assuming the ad starts and ends with the phrase "(TRUE LEGAL NAME OF ORG) [supports/opposes] (name of politician, bill, or ballot measure)"
Politicians taking meetings and listening to ideas based on who is paying for their (re-)election campaigns is corruption. They don't represent corporations, they represent all of the people in their state or district. When they take a meeting from a campaign donor, they are saying that only wealthy people's voices matter to them. It's corruption. Legal and yet still morally depraved.
From the article you linked: "There are therefore two kinds of legal entities: human and non-human. In law, a human person is called a natural person (sometimes also a physical person), and a non-human person is called a juridical person"
No where in that article does it cite a jurisdiction where a non-human legal entity has the same rights and responsibilities as a human. My point still stands that a human has a different, albeit overlapping, set of rights and responsibilities in comparison to other legal entities.
If the people running the monopoly want to lobby the government on their own time, uncompensated, that certainly sounds fine. It's lobbying on behalf of the monopoly that is an issue.
