6 ms·

Amazon is doubling down on lobbying

57 points by salmonet 11y ago

reuven 11y ago
I'm pleased and impressed that the Post is writing skeptical and/or negative stories about Amazon, despite (as the author notes) the fact that Bezos owns the newspaper. He might indeed, after all is said and done, want to see it flourish as a journalistic enterprise, not just as a business.
- walterbell 11y ago
  In what way is this story "skeptical and/or negative"? It quotes Bezos and summarizes Amazon's lobbying objectives, i.e. the article is itself engaging in lobbying.
  - zwily 11y ago
    I suppose that some people believe all lobbying is bad.
    - dhimes 11y ago
      walterbell makes a good point I hadn't thought of though: from a board of directors point of view, this may be a positive piece that encourages investors.
      - akilism 11y ago
        I don't really see any negative spin at all. Amazon is portrayed as a business just trying to get things done in "backwards" Washington DC. They are made out to seem like they don't even know what they are doing, "Amazon is really having to learn how to navigate all these things," even though they are spending nearly 10 million dollars on lobbying, have numerous contracts with the federal government and have a former whitehouse press secretary as a senior vp? This is pretty much an amazon fluff piece.
        dhimes 11y ago
        It's what zwily said. Among the majority population, lobbying is seen as what businesses do to get laws written that are favorable to their interests, including tax breaks, energy subsidies, etc. In concept people understand that when a congressperson needs to learn about something in order to make a decision, he or she should be talking to experts. In practice (the perception is) those experts tend to try to persuade more than educate. So, in the example of the drones flying for example, the lawmakers may be learning of all of the good outcomes of easing FAA regs and letting Amazon fly drones, and may even distinguish between large companies (or another grouping in which Amazon falls) and a grouping that their competitors may fall into (say, smaller companies) in a way that becomes a barrier to entry for the competitors. This will obviously be seen as reasonable in some sense, but there may have been a better way to do things that didn't raise the barrier for competition. Amazon lobbyists are unlikely to help the congressperson understand that other way. At least, that's how some perceive it.
        edc117 11y ago
        Are you saying this is not how it is? There is a lot of downvoting of anti-lobbying sentiment here, but I haven't seen a reasonable explanation as to why yet, and I'm curious. Everything I've read tends to indicate that it's a net negative for society when well funded, non-objective parties essentially write the laws.
        dhimes 11y ago
        I think it can be that way, but I don't know if it always is. For instance, in making marine laws for pleasure boaters lobbying occurs where a group (BoatUS, for example, or the non-profit United States Power Squadrons) will push for a law (or to prevent one) without a real profit motive. These are about things like requiring people to wear life jackets in dinghies or being allowed to anchor in certain regions.
    - walterbell 11y ago
      Lobbying of the DC public has a role, but should not be mistaken for journalism.
    - astazangasta 11y ago
      Lobbying by large corporations is bad, period. This is not just "speech", this is a wheel of bribery and legislation-writing. It is replacing any hope of democracy with corporate rule.
    - snarfy 11y ago
      It's not all bad, but the bad outweighs the good by such a large value that the net sum is harmful to society. We would be better off without it. The problem with lobbying is it is a feedback loop which affects further lobbying, and lobbyists today have far too much power. It's because money is involved.
  - reuven 11y ago
    Hmm, interesting point. I think that most companies that engage in lobbying try to keep such activity relatively quiet, and aren't interested in having it exposed or written about. I'm not saying that lobbying is bad; I realize that it's part of the process. But I do think that many lobbyists prefer a lack of transparency and exposure.
  - mkhpalm 11y ago
    Yeah, I don't think people notice advertorials or understand motives for things like this. Its just to get the news out that amazon is open for business in the upcoming election cycle.
TsomArp 11y ago
How is it lobbying even legal? Can somebody explain? (Serious question).
- vermontdevil 11y ago
  Freedom of speech. Courts have ruled that citizens have the right to group and petition to Congress to listen to a specific issue or more (redress of grievances). That has evolved into lobbying groups that are funded by corporations, organizations, unions, etc. And courts have ruled that money = speech and thus government can't regulate that either. You can read more here: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/043015/why-lobbying-legal-and-important-us.asp http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/043015/why-lo...
  - TsomArp 11y ago
    Thanks.
    - amorphid 11y ago
      Also, lobbying helps address issues where laws haven't kept up with technology. A friend of mine is a lobbyist for an energy company. During a power outage, they will do robo-calling to customers to survey whether power is out in a given area. Those robo-calls were (or still are?) illegal, because they violated telemarketing laws. They lobbied to update the legislation for the "do you have power?" robo-calls.
      - tyingq 11y ago
        Amazon would probably categorize their push for all online retailers to collect and pay sales tax in all 50 US states as an example of this. Funny thing, though, is that their position was the exact opposite back when there were many states that they had no presence in, and were able to not charge sales tax in those states.
- afarrell 11y ago
  Lobbying consists primarily speaking about what you think public policy should be. Doing this is explicitly protected as legal by first amendment to the US constitution. Without the ability for individuals to speak about public policy, how can there be democracy? There is a problem. Wealthier individuals have the ability to speak more persuasively. They can afford education in rhetoric. They can afford time to learn how laws are written. They can afford time to learn about the particular domain which those laws must govern. They can afford the time to spend honing their arguments. They can afford expensive pieces of equipment like printing presses, which have always been expensive, to spread those arguments. Does this mean that the rich have more ability to influence public policy than the poor? Yes. Yes it absolutely does. There is also a question of whether people can pool their resources to create organizations that advocate for certain policies or candidates. The US Supreme Court was recently asked to examine this question and gave an opionion on it, which you can read here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
BurningFrog 11y ago
When you play the Game of Crony Capitalism, you lobby or you die.
cottonseed 11y ago
Only $10m? The sadist thing about American politico-capito-corruption is how little the players sold themselves for. Double digits is an great return on money. Lobbying returns 22,000%? [1] Come on, American politicians, you're better than this! [1] http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/01/06/144737864/forget-stocks-or-bonds-invest-in-a-lobbyist http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/01/06/144737864/forge...

57 points by salmonet 11y ago

I'm pleased and impressed that the Post is writing skeptical and/or negative stories about Amazon, despite (as the author notes) the fact that Bezos owns the newspaper. He might indeed, after all is said and done, want to see it flourish as a journalistic enterprise, not just as a business.

walterbell 11y ago
In what way is this story "skeptical and/or negative"? It quotes Bezos and summarizes Amazon's lobbying objectives, i.e. the article is itself engaging in lobbying.
- zwily 11y ago
  I suppose that some people believe all lobbying is bad.
  - dhimes 11y ago
    walterbell makes a good point I hadn't thought of though: from a board of directors point of view, this may be a positive piece that encourages investors.
    - akilism 11y ago
      I don't really see any negative spin at all. Amazon is portrayed as a business just trying to get things done in "backwards" Washington DC. They are made out to seem like they don't even know what they are doing, "Amazon is really having to learn how to navigate all these things," even though they are spending nearly 10 million dollars on lobbying, have numerous contracts with the federal government and have a former whitehouse press secretary as a senior vp? This is pretty much an amazon fluff piece.
      - dhimes 11y ago
        It's what zwily said. Among the majority population, lobbying is seen as what businesses do to get laws written that are favorable to their interests, including tax breaks, energy subsidies, etc. In concept people understand that when a congressperson needs to learn about something in order to make a decision, he or she should be talking to experts. In practice (the perception is) those experts tend to try to persuade more than educate. So, in the example of the drones flying for example, the lawmakers may be learning of all of the good outcomes of easing FAA regs and letting Amazon fly drones, and may even distinguish between large companies (or another grouping in which Amazon falls) and a grouping that their competitors may fall into (say, smaller companies) in a way that becomes a barrier to entry for the competitors. This will obviously be seen as reasonable in some sense, but there may have been a better way to do things that didn't raise the barrier for competition. Amazon lobbyists are unlikely to help the congressperson understand that other way. At least, that's how some perceive it.
        edc117 11y ago
        Are you saying this is not how it is? There is a lot of downvoting of anti-lobbying sentiment here, but I haven't seen a reasonable explanation as to why yet, and I'm curious. Everything I've read tends to indicate that it's a net negative for society when well funded, non-objective parties essentially write the laws.
        dhimes 11y ago
        I think it can be that way, but I don't know if it always is. For instance, in making marine laws for pleasure boaters lobbying occurs where a group (BoatUS, for example, or the non-profit United States Power Squadrons) will push for a law (or to prevent one) without a real profit motive. These are about things like requiring people to wear life jackets in dinghies or being allowed to anchor in certain regions.
  - walterbell 11y ago
    Lobbying of the DC public has a role, but should not be mistaken for journalism.
  - astazangasta 11y ago
    Lobbying by large corporations is bad, period. This is not just "speech", this is a wheel of bribery and legislation-writing. It is replacing any hope of democracy with corporate rule.
  - snarfy 11y ago
    It's not all bad, but the bad outweighs the good by such a large value that the net sum is harmful to society. We would be better off without it. The problem with lobbying is it is a feedback loop which affects further lobbying, and lobbyists today have far too much power. It's because money is involved.
- reuven 11y ago
  Hmm, interesting point. I think that most companies that engage in lobbying try to keep such activity relatively quiet, and aren't interested in having it exposed or written about. I'm not saying that lobbying is bad; I realize that it's part of the process. But I do think that many lobbyists prefer a lack of transparency and exposure.
- mkhpalm 11y ago
  Yeah, I don't think people notice advertorials or understand motives for things like this. Its just to get the news out that amazon is open for business in the upcoming election cycle.

TsomArp 11y ago

How is it lobbying even legal? Can somebody explain? (Serious question).

vermontdevil 11y ago
Freedom of speech. Courts have ruled that citizens have the right to group and petition to Congress to listen to a specific issue or more (redress of grievances). That has evolved into lobbying groups that are funded by corporations, organizations, unions, etc. And courts have ruled that money = speech and thus government can't regulate that either. You can read more here: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/043015/why-lobbying-legal-and-important-us.asp http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/043015/why-lo...
- TsomArp 11y ago
  Thanks.
  - amorphid 11y ago
    Also, lobbying helps address issues where laws haven't kept up with technology. A friend of mine is a lobbyist for an energy company. During a power outage, they will do robo-calling to customers to survey whether power is out in a given area. Those robo-calls were (or still are?) illegal, because they violated telemarketing laws. They lobbied to update the legislation for the "do you have power?" robo-calls.
    - tyingq 11y ago
      Amazon would probably categorize their push for all online retailers to collect and pay sales tax in all 50 US states as an example of this. Funny thing, though, is that their position was the exact opposite back when there were many states that they had no presence in, and were able to not charge sales tax in those states.
afarrell 11y ago
Lobbying consists primarily speaking about what you think public policy should be. Doing this is explicitly protected as legal by first amendment to the US constitution. Without the ability for individuals to speak about public policy, how can there be democracy? There is a problem. Wealthier individuals have the ability to speak more persuasively. They can afford education in rhetoric. They can afford time to learn how laws are written. They can afford time to learn about the particular domain which those laws must govern. They can afford the time to spend honing their arguments. They can afford expensive pieces of equipment like printing presses, which have always been expensive, to spread those arguments. Does this mean that the rich have more ability to influence public policy than the poor? Yes. Yes it absolutely does. There is also a question of whether people can pool their resources to create organizations that advocate for certain policies or candidates. The US Supreme Court was recently asked to examine this question and gave an opionion on it, which you can read here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

BurningFrog 11y ago

When you play the Game of Crony Capitalism, you lobby or you die.

cottonseed 11y ago

Only $10m? The sadist thing about American politico-capito-corruption is how little the players sold themselves for. Double digits is an great return on money. Lobbying returns 22,000%? [1] Come on, American politicians, you're better than this! [1] http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/01/06/144737864/forget-stocks-or-bonds-invest-in-a-lobbyist http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/01/06/144737864/forge...