9 ms·

I don't see a lot of difference between bribery to get something done and lobbying to get the law changed so you can get something done. Note that I am equally

by SeanDav 11y ago

I don't see a lot of difference between bribery to get something done and lobbying to get the law changed so you can get something done. Note that I am equally disgusted at both of these.

rayiner 11y ago
What do you think lobbying involves?
- SeanDav 11y ago
  Here is an interesting article: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/04/how-corporate-lobbyists-conquered-american-democracy/390822/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/04/how-corp...
  - ryao 11y ago
    That does not explain how they get their results. By the way, is it illegal if the bribes are called campaign contributions or are sent to places the target wants money to go, like a charity that helps their political ambitions?
    - rayiner 11y ago
      If there is a quid pro quo, then it's illegal, regardless of how the payment is characterized.
      - ryao 11y ago
        Then how do lobbyists achieve results? The idea of a lobbyist seems like an impossibility to me without quid pro quo.
        kazagistar 11y ago
        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.
        rayiner 11y ago
        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.
        ced 11y ago
        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?
        rayiner 11y ago
        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.
      - knodi123 11y ago
        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.
    - profeta 11y ago
      > is it illegal if the bribes are called campaign contributions no. and yes. there are donation limits. So what they do, is to create super-PACs and such. which means, lots of little people and companies donate the maximum to the candidate, but all those people and companies all get their money from the same source. So in practice, a single source is brib---donating way more than allowed by law, but legally.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    That article gives zero insight into what lobbying actually involves. So I ask you, what do you think it involves?
    - logfromblammo 11y ago
      I think of it as advertising tailored and targeted at a small set of specific individuals. The advertiser has to compete for the scarce resource that is the attention of the target, then make an impression sufficiently memorable that it will change future behavior. As such, the lobbying will take a different form for different targets, based on their individual preferences and personalities. For some, lobbying will actually take the form of accosting a senator in the lobby of their office building to discuss a possibly overlooked consequence of a bill up for consideration. For others, it may take the form of anonymously mailing some blackmail photos. For others, it may be cash in an unmarked envelope. My impression of lobbying is that it involves anything and everything likely to produce the desired result within the allocated budget. Some lobbyists are better positioned to influence specific issues than others. If you are not allowed to lobby by offering a bribe directly to the person who must be swayed, it is always possible to work your way down the chain of social connections to someone or several someones that can be bribed to carry your case to that person on your behalf. If you can't bribe the senator, hire their spouse to change their mind. If you can't hire the spouse, hire their best friend. If you can't hire the spouse's best friend, hire the extramarital romantic interest. If you can't hire that person, hire a photographer. As long as getting the attention of a government office holder is worth more than what it costs to obtain, there will be lobbyists available to purchase it wholesale and resell it in manageable parcels.
hjhgjtyhgdfi8 11y ago
One involves the First Amendment. The other is illegal.
BurningFrog 11y ago
Remember that any political campaign to change a law, like legalizing same sex marriages, is lobbying. Many seem to think it's only campaigns you don't agree with that are.
joshjkim 11y ago
In terms of developing countries that are the subject of this story (with no real campaign finance frameworks and/or enforcement, and maybe not even open elections), I think you're right to say there's probably no real difference. However, in the US and other countries with (relatively) developed election and legislation processes, I think there's some key differences: Lobbying usually requires a level of policy rationalization (however disingenuous) that bribery does not. Lobbyist can say behind closed doors that they want X for selfish reasons, but in order for it to be politically tenable the legislator usually will require at least some publicly defensible rationalization for the action. Similarly, lobbying usually involves the legislative process and getting a political actor to make certain political/legislative decisions that would benefit the lobbyist's clients. Bribe's usually involves getting a person in power to make decisions that often don't involve the political process or legislations, like the awarding of a contract by an agency under their control, or withholding an investigation. Seen this way, lobbying can be and has been characterized as interest groups subsidizing the legislative process by providing competing research and proposals to an understaffed legislature. Whether that's a good or bad of making law is another discussion, but I think it's fair to say that bribery could not be considered that way, and therefore serves no acceptable public purpose other than the enrichment of the briber and bribee.
ArkyBeagle 11y ago
I don't think you can avoid lobbying, though. I do not consider all lobbying everywhere to be anything like unethical nor immoral. If you think that this must be adversarial, and that The People must get completely impartial ... justice in dealing with all economic entities, then you must expect to match those entities blow for blow. But there are information and resource asymmetries in play that are profound. This ignores that some people simply view activities differently, which will greatly increase the cost.
akiselev 11y ago
Basically all types of bribery is corruption but that does not mean that all types of lobbying is bribery. Grassroots movements organize all the time using donations from its members which they then use to send a lobbyist (a member of the org or a professional) to Washington, where they can use their personal contacts and influence to get an audience with a legislator to provide them with information. Most lobbying, I would wager, is of that form: a lobbyist simply informs the legislator about the on the ground perspective of a grassroots movement's members, a corporation, or industry group. It only becomes distasteful when a lobbyist has influence over campaign contributions or the ability to provide "perks" like hiring a politician's friends or family. You can argue that campaign contributions are a form of bribery but there remains the big difference that in well regulated nations, all of the donations have a maximum and are tracked publicly [1][2]. In the US, all campaign spending is released publicly, both by politicians/political NGOs and campaign finance improprieties destroy political careers quite often. In the US, the FEC has the authority to enact civil penalties and the DOJ has the authority to prosecute any politicians caught willfully misusing campaign finance to better themselves. [3] [1] http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norindsea.shtml http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norindsea.shtml [2] https://www.opensecrets.org/ https://www.opensecrets.org/ [3] http://www.fec.gov/ans/answers_compliance.shtml#penalties http://www.fec.gov/ans/answers_compliance.shtml#penalties
burkaman 11y ago
Lobbying is just telling a representative your views, which is how democracy works. What I assume you mean is giving campaign contributions in exchange for influence, which is bribery and is illegal if you can prove quid pro quo. Corporate lobbying is questionable for other reasons, but it's not bribery. It's on elected officials to not let businesses influence them too much, no matter how many lobbyists they hire.

by SeanDav 11y ago

I don't see a lot of difference between bribery to get something done and lobbying to get the law changed so you can get something done. Note that I am equally disgusted at both of these.

rayiner 11y ago

What do you think lobbying involves?

SeanDav 11y ago
Here is an interesting article: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/04/how-corporate-lobbyists-conquered-american-democracy/390822/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/04/how-corp...
- ryao 11y ago
  That does not explain how they get their results. By the way, is it illegal if the bribes are called campaign contributions or are sent to places the target wants money to go, like a charity that helps their political ambitions?
  - rayiner 11y ago
    If there is a quid pro quo, then it's illegal, regardless of how the payment is characterized.
    - ryao 11y ago
      Then how do lobbyists achieve results? The idea of a lobbyist seems like an impossibility to me without quid pro quo.
      - kazagistar 11y ago
        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.
      - rayiner 11y ago
        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.
        ced 11y ago
        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?
        rayiner 11y ago
        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.
    - knodi123 11y ago
      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.
  - profeta 11y ago
    > is it illegal if the bribes are called campaign contributions no. and yes. there are donation limits. So what they do, is to create super-PACs and such. which means, lots of little people and companies donate the maximum to the candidate, but all those people and companies all get their money from the same source. So in practice, a single source is brib---donating way more than allowed by law, but legally.
- rayiner 11y ago
  That article gives zero insight into what lobbying actually involves. So I ask you, what do you think it involves?
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    I think of it as advertising tailored and targeted at a small set of specific individuals. The advertiser has to compete for the scarce resource that is the attention of the target, then make an impression sufficiently memorable that it will change future behavior. As such, the lobbying will take a different form for different targets, based on their individual preferences and personalities. For some, lobbying will actually take the form of accosting a senator in the lobby of their office building to discuss a possibly overlooked consequence of a bill up for consideration. For others, it may take the form of anonymously mailing some blackmail photos. For others, it may be cash in an unmarked envelope. My impression of lobbying is that it involves anything and everything likely to produce the desired result within the allocated budget. Some lobbyists are better positioned to influence specific issues than others. If you are not allowed to lobby by offering a bribe directly to the person who must be swayed, it is always possible to work your way down the chain of social connections to someone or several someones that can be bribed to carry your case to that person on your behalf. If you can't bribe the senator, hire their spouse to change their mind. If you can't hire the spouse, hire their best friend. If you can't hire the spouse's best friend, hire the extramarital romantic interest. If you can't hire that person, hire a photographer. As long as getting the attention of a government office holder is worth more than what it costs to obtain, there will be lobbyists available to purchase it wholesale and resell it in manageable parcels.

hjhgjtyhgdfi8 11y ago

One involves the First Amendment. The other is illegal.

BurningFrog 11y ago

Remember that any political campaign to change a law, like legalizing same sex marriages, is lobbying. Many seem to think it's only campaigns you don't agree with that are.

joshjkim 11y ago

In terms of developing countries that are the subject of this story (with no real campaign finance frameworks and/or enforcement, and maybe not even open elections), I think you're right to say there's probably no real difference. However, in the US and other countries with (relatively) developed election and legislation processes, I think there's some key differences: Lobbying usually requires a level of policy rationalization (however disingenuous) that bribery does not. Lobbyist can say behind closed doors that they want X for selfish reasons, but in order for it to be politically tenable the legislator usually will require at least some publicly defensible rationalization for the action. Similarly, lobbying usually involves the legislative process and getting a political actor to make certain political/legislative decisions that would benefit the lobbyist's clients. Bribe's usually involves getting a person in power to make decisions that often don't involve the political process or legislations, like the awarding of a contract by an agency under their control, or withholding an investigation. Seen this way, lobbying can be and has been characterized as interest groups subsidizing the legislative process by providing competing research and proposals to an understaffed legislature. Whether that's a good or bad of making law is another discussion, but I think it's fair to say that bribery could not be considered that way, and therefore serves no acceptable public purpose other than the enrichment of the briber and bribee.

ArkyBeagle 11y ago

I don't think you can avoid lobbying, though. I do not consider all lobbying everywhere to be anything like unethical nor immoral. If you think that this must be adversarial, and that The People must get completely impartial ... justice in dealing with all economic entities, then you must expect to match those entities blow for blow. But there are information and resource asymmetries in play that are profound. This ignores that some people simply view activities differently, which will greatly increase the cost.

akiselev 11y ago

Basically all types of bribery is corruption but that does not mean that all types of lobbying is bribery. Grassroots movements organize all the time using donations from its members which they then use to send a lobbyist (a member of the org or a professional) to Washington, where they can use their personal contacts and influence to get an audience with a legislator to provide them with information. Most lobbying, I would wager, is of that form: a lobbyist simply informs the legislator about the on the ground perspective of a grassroots movement's members, a corporation, or industry group. It only becomes distasteful when a lobbyist has influence over campaign contributions or the ability to provide "perks" like hiring a politician's friends or family. You can argue that campaign contributions are a form of bribery but there remains the big difference that in well regulated nations, all of the donations have a maximum and are tracked publicly [1][2]. In the US, all campaign spending is released publicly, both by politicians/political NGOs and campaign finance improprieties destroy political careers quite often. In the US, the FEC has the authority to enact civil penalties and the DOJ has the authority to prosecute any politicians caught willfully misusing campaign finance to better themselves. [3] [1] http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norindsea.shtml http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norindsea.shtml [2] https://www.opensecrets.org/ https://www.opensecrets.org/ [3] http://www.fec.gov/ans/answers_compliance.shtml#penalties http://www.fec.gov/ans/answers_compliance.shtml#penalties

burkaman 11y ago

Lobbying is just telling a representative your views, which is how democracy works. What I assume you mean is giving campaign contributions in exchange for influence, which is bribery and is illegal if you can prove quid pro quo. Corporate lobbying is questionable for other reasons, but it's not bribery. It's on elected officials to not let businesses influence them too much, no matter how many lobbyists they hire.