4 ms·

> Wouldn’t it be nice if lobbying were illegal? Honestly, no. It's essential that law makers can be informed by all interested parties. The problem is a lack o

by jahnu 11y ago

> Wouldn’t it be nice if lobbying were illegal? Honestly, no. It's essential that law makers can be informed by all interested parties. The problem is a lack of transparency. Complex to control but not impossible. Every single meeting between an elected officials and anyone lobbying them should be in some way recorded and made public. As if it were a public debate. The other issue is fund raising. Too broad and complex to really go into here but if a politician didn't or couldn't raise funds it would make lobbying more honest, imho.

matthewbauer 11y ago
That's a good point. The biggest problem with it though is how effective it can be at influencing policy against the public interest. I suppose if I wrote a letter to my congressperson it would be considered lobbying but that's rarely what people mean.
- sosborn 11y ago
  > The biggest problem with it though is how effective it can be at influencing policy against the public interest. The thing is that "public interest" is hard to define and dependent on each individual. Someone lobbying for a nuclear power plant in "City A" will be lauded by some and derided by others. In this case, is lobbying good, or is it bad? Who decides that?
Spooky23 11y ago
Transparency means nothing. If anything, many of the transparency programs are fodder, advertisements for lobbyists -- they prospect clients by showing them all of the big shots the competition are meeting with. If lobbying and fundraising were more restrictive, ultimately access to policy makers and legislators would improve. Today, all that matters is the check.
mapt 11y ago
"The problem is a lack of transparency" might have been true in some historical era when there was less money involved; We could target a singular corrupt politician taking bribes if we knew about the bribes. Sure. But that's not the problem we have. Our problem is fund-raising. Politicians are not meeting once every few years with a lobbyist at 2AM beneath the Lincoln Memorial, they're spending 60% of their time on the phone begging moneyed interests for reelection campaign funds or party goals, the day after they get elected. They're spending 25% of their time negotiating with lobbyists about what laws the lobbyists get to write ("The legislative subsidy model" of RL Hall, wherein they replace Congressional staff increases), and another 10% trying to raise their professional profile through non-legislative activities in the press or with political powerbrokers. Maybe 5% of their time is spent in committee meetings or on the floor. On top of that, it starts out as a part-time job, with meaningful meetings limited to a few days of the week in order to satisfy the need to fly home to meet with contributors. The Senate has become nearly impossible to get bills through for a similar reason - a filibuster is a time-wasting annoyance legislatively, but its requirement that 51 Senators stay on the floor to break it prevents them from spending days fundraising, an existential threat to their careers, while the filibustering party only has to commit a couple Senators to keep it active. Of the bills voted on in their legislative career, the proportion actually read by the legislator will be under 1%. The number read in full by their staff, under 10%. Politicans are not hiding this; They are complaining about it. We have created a system wherein legislating ranks as the lowest priority, and not even the wealthiest in Congress can be free of implicit corruption.
- JoBrad 11y ago
  What I find hilarious (and a little soul-sucking for the politicians), is that the money that they raise from taxpayers is used...to convince taxpayers to elect them, so they can raise money from taxpayers...ad nauseam
markdown 11y ago
> Honestly, no. It's essential that law makers can be informed by all interested parties. Except lobbying does the opposite of that. It means only the wealthy parties are heard.
- jahnu 11y ago
  Not true. The EFF lobbies, for example. I think this is OK. But I'd like the times and minutes of their meetings to be publicly available and searchable.
mtgx 11y ago
I'd prefer if the lawmakers were only informed through public hearings. That's already how it happens in other countries where lobbying is illegal. Public hearings are public, recorded, and there are voices from multiple camps speaking out about an issue, and given equal time to do it. Lobbying happens in back rooms, and it's only one person talking at a time making their point. Registering lobbyists and saying when they talk to politicians won't help much if we also don't know what they're telling the politicians or if other voices don't get equal time to speak to those politicians. When SOPA was about to pass, one politician ignorantly said that "the People" should just get their own lobbyists. Yeah, except the people can't afford to get a lobbyist for every issue. They can afford to participate in a public hearing.

by jahnu 11y ago

matthewbauer 11y ago

That's a good point. The biggest problem with it though is how effective it can be at influencing policy against the public interest. I suppose if I wrote a letter to my congressperson it would be considered lobbying but that's rarely what people mean.

sosborn 11y ago
> The biggest problem with it though is how effective it can be at influencing policy against the public interest. The thing is that "public interest" is hard to define and dependent on each individual. Someone lobbying for a nuclear power plant in "City A" will be lauded by some and derided by others. In this case, is lobbying good, or is it bad? Who decides that?

Spooky23 11y ago

Transparency means nothing. If anything, many of the transparency programs are fodder, advertisements for lobbyists -- they prospect clients by showing them all of the big shots the competition are meeting with. If lobbying and fundraising were more restrictive, ultimately access to policy makers and legislators would improve. Today, all that matters is the check.

mapt 11y ago

"The problem is a lack of transparency" might have been true in some historical era when there was less money involved; We could target a singular corrupt politician taking bribes if we knew about the bribes. Sure. But that's not the problem we have. Our problem is fund-raising. Politicians are not meeting once every few years with a lobbyist at 2AM beneath the Lincoln Memorial, they're spending 60% of their time on the phone begging moneyed interests for reelection campaign funds or party goals, the day after they get elected. They're spending 25% of their time negotiating with lobbyists about what laws the lobbyists get to write ("The legislative subsidy model" of RL Hall, wherein they replace Congressional staff increases), and another 10% trying to raise their professional profile through non-legislative activities in the press or with political powerbrokers. Maybe 5% of their time is spent in committee meetings or on the floor. On top of that, it starts out as a part-time job, with meaningful meetings limited to a few days of the week in order to satisfy the need to fly home to meet with contributors. The Senate has become nearly impossible to get bills through for a similar reason - a filibuster is a time-wasting annoyance legislatively, but its requirement that 51 Senators stay on the floor to break it prevents them from spending days fundraising, an existential threat to their careers, while the filibustering party only has to commit a couple Senators to keep it active. Of the bills voted on in their legislative career, the proportion actually read by the legislator will be under 1%. The number read in full by their staff, under 10%. Politicans are not hiding this; They are complaining about it. We have created a system wherein legislating ranks as the lowest priority, and not even the wealthiest in Congress can be free of implicit corruption.

JoBrad 11y ago
What I find hilarious (and a little soul-sucking for the politicians), is that the money that they raise from taxpayers is used...to convince taxpayers to elect them, so they can raise money from taxpayers...ad nauseam

markdown 11y ago

> Honestly, no. It's essential that law makers can be informed by all interested parties. Except lobbying does the opposite of that. It means only the wealthy parties are heard.

jahnu 11y ago
Not true. The EFF lobbies, for example. I think this is OK. But I'd like the times and minutes of their meetings to be publicly available and searchable.

mtgx 11y ago

I'd prefer if the lawmakers were only informed through public hearings. That's already how it happens in other countries where lobbying is illegal. Public hearings are public, recorded, and there are voices from multiple camps speaking out about an issue, and given equal time to do it. Lobbying happens in back rooms, and it's only one person talking at a time making their point. Registering lobbyists and saying when they talk to politicians won't help much if we also don't know what they're telling the politicians or if other voices don't get equal time to speak to those politicians. When SOPA was about to pass, one politician ignorantly said that "the People" should just get their own lobbyists. Yeah, except the people can't afford to get a lobbyist for every issue. They can afford to participate in a public hearing.