5 ms·

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 cons

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...
- afarrell 11y ago
  I'd be interested to know if you have stories about people practicing these tactics where those people were not indicted of any crimes.
- pdabbadabba 11y ago
  > An anecdote from Jack Abramoff, former lobbyist sentenced to 4 years for "trading expensive gifts, meals and sports trips in exchange for political favors" This is true, but outdated. The lobbying rules were drastically tightened as a result of this scandal. The rules aren't perfect, but they are much stronger and better enforced than they used to be. Today, I think GP has it right about the primary advantage being access and the resources to use that access, not the sort of bribery you describe. Have a look: http://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Gifts http://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Gifts https://ethics.house.gov/gifts/house-gift-rule https://ethics.house.gov/gifts/house-gift-rule
grecy 11y ago
You forgot to mention unlimited campaign contributions, which is paying someone to pass laws in your favor. How that's legal, I don't understand.
- asuffield 11y ago
  It's legal because Americans consistently vote for the people who do it over the people who don't. This is democracy in action, in a very real sense.
ufmace 11y ago
In theory, anybody can do what these lobbyists do, or rather they aren't doing anything that any person couldn't do - carefully follow everything that goes on in Congress, try to secure meetings with congresspeople and their aides to try and explain their point of view, research things and put favorable facts at peoples' fingertips instead of making them search around themselves, etc. In practice, it makes a huge difference when it's your full-time job to do it, versus individuals acting in their free time. And a bigger difference when you have a big budget to wine and dine people, take them out to nice places, show up at events, do research and organize data for slick presentations, and other such things. And a bigger difference yet when you keep doing it for years and years, building relationships with people, getting experience in who can get things done and is responsive to your input, learning how all of the processes really work, and ultimately hiring more former insiders who already know these things.
- Joof 11y ago
  Even in theory we can pretty much guarantee a non-objective outcome because that's the lobbyist's intent.

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...

afarrell 11y ago
I'd be interested to know if you have stories about people practicing these tactics where those people were not indicted of any crimes.
pdabbadabba 11y ago
> An anecdote from Jack Abramoff, former lobbyist sentenced to 4 years for "trading expensive gifts, meals and sports trips in exchange for political favors" This is true, but outdated. The lobbying rules were drastically tightened as a result of this scandal. The rules aren't perfect, but they are much stronger and better enforced than they used to be. Today, I think GP has it right about the primary advantage being access and the resources to use that access, not the sort of bribery you describe. Have a look: http://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Gifts http://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Gifts https://ethics.house.gov/gifts/house-gift-rule https://ethics.house.gov/gifts/house-gift-rule

grecy 11y ago

You forgot to mention unlimited campaign contributions, which is paying someone to pass laws in your favor. How that's legal, I don't understand.

asuffield 11y ago
It's legal because Americans consistently vote for the people who do it over the people who don't. This is democracy in action, in a very real sense.

ufmace 11y ago

In theory, anybody can do what these lobbyists do, or rather they aren't doing anything that any person couldn't do - carefully follow everything that goes on in Congress, try to secure meetings with congresspeople and their aides to try and explain their point of view, research things and put favorable facts at peoples' fingertips instead of making them search around themselves, etc. In practice, it makes a huge difference when it's your full-time job to do it, versus individuals acting in their free time. And a bigger difference when you have a big budget to wine and dine people, take them out to nice places, show up at events, do research and organize data for slick presentations, and other such things. And a bigger difference yet when you keep doing it for years and years, building relationships with people, getting experience in who can get things done and is responsive to your input, learning how all of the processes really work, and ultimately hiring more former insiders who already know these things.

Joof 11y ago
Even in theory we can pretty much guarantee a non-objective outcome because that's the lobbyist's intent.