6 ms·

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

by TsomArp 11y ago

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
- chishaku 11y ago
  You and other commenters are focusing on lobbying in principle, and I generally agree with your explanations. But what about lobbying in practice? The revolving door, gifts, paid trips, campaign contributions, etc. Wealthier individuals have a greater ability to influence politicians and not just because "they can afford education in rhetoric." It is difficult in most cases to prove quid pro quo bribery. But I suspect most politicians, lobbyists and insiders generally agree that politics is increasingly a pay-to-play game. An anecdote from Jack Abramoff, former lobbyist sentenced to 4 years for "trading expensive gifts, meals and sports trips in exchange for political favors"[0]: '...the number-one weapon used to influence a member of Congress was the promise of a future, high-paying job to a member's top staffers. 'Now the moment I said that to them or any of our staff said that to them, that was it. We owned them,' Abramoff said . 'And what does that mean? Every request ... of our clients, everything that we want, they're going to do. Not only that, they're going to think of things we can't think of to do' ... Such tactics resulted in Abramoff's lobbying firm holding sway in the offices of about 100 Congressional representatives, he says ... 'I would view that as a failure, because that leaves 335 offices that we didn't have strong influence in.' [1] Note: Other than Abramoff, whom the media generally focused on during his corruption investigation, many other people were also convicted of crimes including officials from the White House, House of Representatives, congressional staff, Department of the Interior, Labor Department and Justice Department. [2] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff#Indian_tribes_grand_jury_investigations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff#Indian_tribes_gr... [1]: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/how-jack-abramoff-says-he-bought-100-members-of-congress/247860/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/how-jack... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff#People_convicted_in_Abramoff_probe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff#People_convicted...
rayiner 11y ago
What do you think lobbying is exactly? By and large, lobbying is the process of presenting politicians with factual and legal arguments to support policy positions that they wanted to take anyway. So if climate change legislation would be bad for your company, you go find the conservative politicians who are ideologically opposed to environmental regulation and you present their staff with every bit of information you can find to throw into the debate. Why should this be illegal?
- tyingq 11y ago
  It seems reasonable to me to conclude that this system would result in those with the most money and power getting the most face time to present their arguments. Which could often mean that corporate interests trump individual interests. And, of course, there are plenty of instances of corruption in the lobbying process. Everything from outright bribery, to promises of lucrative jobs post retirement for congresspersons, etc. I don't personally think that lobbying should be illegal, but it doesn't seem that odd that someone might think it should be.
  - snowwrestler 11y ago
    The history of the 20th century actually shows the opposite--both the labor and environmental movements employed lobbying tactics in direct opposition to moneyed corporate interests, and achieved huge success (they each got their own Cabinet agency, for example).
    - tyingq 11y ago
      It shows at least 2 examples of the opposite, yes. That's not, to me, enough to discount that it might be reasonable for a person to be concerned about lobbying, and whether it it might be harmful/illegal.
- tamana 11y ago
  Nice motte and bailey. Congresspeople should pay attention to all their constituents, not auction off their attention to the highest or slickest bidder.
tyingq 11y ago
There's an interesting theory that shows a potentially simple way to reduce the harmful effects of lobbyists. The short version is that there was a change in Congressional procedure in the 1970's that eliminated the secret ballot for Congressional voting on bills. The downside of this is that lobbyists, for the first time, could know for sure if the money they spent trying to get a vote from a specific member of congress panned out or not. Prior to this change, a member of congress was able to vote their conscience, with no way for lobbyists to actually know how they voted. So, the theory is that going back to a secret ballot could weaken the ability of lobbyists to buy votes. It would be difficult, of course, to change this, since going to a secret ballot would also prevent ordinary citizens from seeing how their elected representatives actually voted. A video that goes into more detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJ4tTj6Pe_E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJ4tTj6Pe_E
reuven 11y ago
Even if you hate Michael Moore (and I don't), here's a fun piece that he did more than 20 years ago, in which he hired lobbyists to get a resolution passed in Congress declaring "TV Nation Day," in honor of his TV show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHAspJDFJRA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHAspJDFJRA Besides his commentary and satire, it shows (to some degree) the difference between lobbying in principle and reality.

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

by TsomArp 11y ago

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

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

chishaku 11y ago
You and other commenters are focusing on lobbying in principle, and I generally agree with your explanations. But what about lobbying in practice? The revolving door, gifts, paid trips, campaign contributions, etc. Wealthier individuals have a greater ability to influence politicians and not just because "they can afford education in rhetoric." It is difficult in most cases to prove quid pro quo bribery. But I suspect most politicians, lobbyists and insiders generally agree that politics is increasingly a pay-to-play game. An anecdote from Jack Abramoff, former lobbyist sentenced to 4 years for "trading expensive gifts, meals and sports trips in exchange for political favors"[0]: '...the number-one weapon used to influence a member of Congress was the promise of a future, high-paying job to a member's top staffers. 'Now the moment I said that to them or any of our staff said that to them, that was it. We owned them,' Abramoff said . 'And what does that mean? Every request ... of our clients, everything that we want, they're going to do. Not only that, they're going to think of things we can't think of to do' ... Such tactics resulted in Abramoff's lobbying firm holding sway in the offices of about 100 Congressional representatives, he says ... 'I would view that as a failure, because that leaves 335 offices that we didn't have strong influence in.' [1] Note: Other than Abramoff, whom the media generally focused on during his corruption investigation, many other people were also convicted of crimes including officials from the White House, House of Representatives, congressional staff, Department of the Interior, Labor Department and Justice Department. [2] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff#Indian_tribes_grand_jury_investigations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff#Indian_tribes_gr... [1]: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/how-jack-abramoff-says-he-bought-100-members-of-congress/247860/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/how-jack... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff#People_convicted_in_Abramoff_probe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff#People_convicted...

rayiner 11y ago

What do you think lobbying is exactly? By and large, lobbying is the process of presenting politicians with factual and legal arguments to support policy positions that they wanted to take anyway. So if climate change legislation would be bad for your company, you go find the conservative politicians who are ideologically opposed to environmental regulation and you present their staff with every bit of information you can find to throw into the debate. Why should this be illegal?

tyingq 11y ago
It seems reasonable to me to conclude that this system would result in those with the most money and power getting the most face time to present their arguments. Which could often mean that corporate interests trump individual interests. And, of course, there are plenty of instances of corruption in the lobbying process. Everything from outright bribery, to promises of lucrative jobs post retirement for congresspersons, etc. I don't personally think that lobbying should be illegal, but it doesn't seem that odd that someone might think it should be.
- snowwrestler 11y ago
  The history of the 20th century actually shows the opposite--both the labor and environmental movements employed lobbying tactics in direct opposition to moneyed corporate interests, and achieved huge success (they each got their own Cabinet agency, for example).
  - tyingq 11y ago
    It shows at least 2 examples of the opposite, yes. That's not, to me, enough to discount that it might be reasonable for a person to be concerned about lobbying, and whether it it might be harmful/illegal.
tamana 11y ago
Nice motte and bailey. Congresspeople should pay attention to all their constituents, not auction off their attention to the highest or slickest bidder.

tyingq 11y ago

There's an interesting theory that shows a potentially simple way to reduce the harmful effects of lobbyists. The short version is that there was a change in Congressional procedure in the 1970's that eliminated the secret ballot for Congressional voting on bills. The downside of this is that lobbyists, for the first time, could know for sure if the money they spent trying to get a vote from a specific member of congress panned out or not. Prior to this change, a member of congress was able to vote their conscience, with no way for lobbyists to actually know how they voted. So, the theory is that going back to a secret ballot could weaken the ability of lobbyists to buy votes. It would be difficult, of course, to change this, since going to a secret ballot would also prevent ordinary citizens from seeing how their elected representatives actually voted. A video that goes into more detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJ4tTj6Pe_E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJ4tTj6Pe_E

reuven 11y ago

Even if you hate Michael Moore (and I don't), here's a fun piece that he did more than 20 years ago, in which he hired lobbyists to get a resolution passed in Congress declaring "TV Nation Day," in honor of his TV show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHAspJDFJRA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHAspJDFJRA Besides his commentary and satire, it shows (to some degree) the difference between lobbying in principle and reality.