4 ms·

This is very selective reading of history. Politics were probably more corrupt and lobbying was even more dominant (just in different forms) in the 1800s. Obv

This is very selective reading of history. Politics were probably more corrupt and lobbying was even more dominant (just in different forms) in the 1800s. Obviously, the train has gone off the rails at this point, but we aren't at a fundamentally different place politically than we were in, say 1896, when many of the same issues were at play.

matthewbauer 11y ago
Definitely. At that time the biggest issue was supporters of candidates being given jobs in the government just because they were supporters. It was a huge problem and definitely makes me think lobbying must not have been a concern.
BurningFrog 11y ago
One aspect is that in the 1800s the federal government had maybe 5% of the power it has today. So congress had far less product to sell.
- jeffdavis 11y ago
  Centralizing power makes corruption much more efficient.
  - int_19h 11y ago
    It also makes it more expensive. A freight train is more efficient in terms of cost per unit of mass moved, but few can afford one, and you'd need to have a lot of things in need of moving to even bother. Decentralized power is cheaper, not on the per-"unit of power" basis, but in terms of absolute numbers for real (albeit small and local) problems that it can solve for a price. Such corruption, because it deals with those small and local problems, is mostly contained. But if you happen to be within its scope, it can be just as much, if not more, of a problem, than corruption on higher levels (because it immediately affects the things that happen around you in day-to-day life).
    - BurningFrog 11y ago
      No, it's cheaper to buy 1 legislature then 50.
snowwrestler 11y ago
And the article misleads about the state of lobbying today, for example: > lobbyists who take out lawmakers for expensive lunches A lobbyist who buys an expensive lunch for a lawmaker (member of Congress) is committing a federal offense under the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. The rule is so strict that if a member of Congress is attending a public event with food at a lobbying org, the org cannot provide utensils, unless the member of Congress pays for their food. Executive Order 13490 also prohibits all executive branch political appointees from receiving gifts of any kind from lobbyists, including lunch. The 1999 Supreme Court decision was the right one, as it struck down an interpretation that was obviously too broad. The article names Scalia since he wrote the opinion, but the vote was 9-0! (Obviously this was back in the good old days when the Supreme Court still had 9 justices.)
- mirimir 11y ago
  Lobbyists must be doing something to warrant all the money involved, no? Arguably, lawmakers are being persuaded. Could it just be the abstract strength of their arguments? Somehow, I doubt that.
  - vkou 11y ago
    The most superficial access, combined with the apathy of their constituents on an issue is more then enough to get a politician to support your cause. Alternatively, you can always threaten to fund someone else in the next party primaries/election.
- joshka 11y ago
  “You as a lobbyist cannot buy me a dinner for $40,” Mr. Ackerman said in an interview, as he nibbled finger food at a recent conference on government ethics in New York. “But if you give a contribution to my campaign, I can take you to dinner, and we can discuss politics or official business. You, the lobbyist, can give my campaign $1,000, and the campaign can pay for our dinner. That’s perfectly legal, and it’s perfectly dumb.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20lobby.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20lobby.html
grecy 11y ago
>but we aren't at a fundamentally different place politically than we were in, say 1896 I really don't think you should say that like it's a good thing. It's like saying "American is less corrupt than North Korea!" . That's not saying much.
- bostik 11y ago
  I've been saying something similar for years. Background: I am Finnish. The country routinely tops the world corruption perception index as the least corrupted country in the World. (Not every year, but you get the point.) In my mind, that tells diddly squat about how well things are in Finland. It only highlights how wretched the situation is even in the runner-up country.

matthewbauer 11y ago

Definitely. At that time the biggest issue was supporters of candidates being given jobs in the government just because they were supporters. It was a huge problem and definitely makes me think lobbying must not have been a concern.

BurningFrog 11y ago

One aspect is that in the 1800s the federal government had maybe 5% of the power it has today. So congress had far less product to sell.

jeffdavis 11y ago
Centralizing power makes corruption much more efficient.
- int_19h 11y ago
  It also makes it more expensive. A freight train is more efficient in terms of cost per unit of mass moved, but few can afford one, and you'd need to have a lot of things in need of moving to even bother. Decentralized power is cheaper, not on the per-"unit of power" basis, but in terms of absolute numbers for real (albeit small and local) problems that it can solve for a price. Such corruption, because it deals with those small and local problems, is mostly contained. But if you happen to be within its scope, it can be just as much, if not more, of a problem, than corruption on higher levels (because it immediately affects the things that happen around you in day-to-day life).
  - BurningFrog 11y ago
    No, it's cheaper to buy 1 legislature then 50.

snowwrestler 11y ago

And the article misleads about the state of lobbying today, for example: > lobbyists who take out lawmakers for expensive lunches A lobbyist who buys an expensive lunch for a lawmaker (member of Congress) is committing a federal offense under the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. The rule is so strict that if a member of Congress is attending a public event with food at a lobbying org, the org cannot provide utensils, unless the member of Congress pays for their food. Executive Order 13490 also prohibits all executive branch political appointees from receiving gifts of any kind from lobbyists, including lunch. The 1999 Supreme Court decision was the right one, as it struck down an interpretation that was obviously too broad. The article names Scalia since he wrote the opinion, but the vote was 9-0! (Obviously this was back in the good old days when the Supreme Court still had 9 justices.)

mirimir 11y ago
Lobbyists must be doing something to warrant all the money involved, no? Arguably, lawmakers are being persuaded. Could it just be the abstract strength of their arguments? Somehow, I doubt that.
- vkou 11y ago
  The most superficial access, combined with the apathy of their constituents on an issue is more then enough to get a politician to support your cause. Alternatively, you can always threaten to fund someone else in the next party primaries/election.
joshka 11y ago
“You as a lobbyist cannot buy me a dinner for $40,” Mr. Ackerman said in an interview, as he nibbled finger food at a recent conference on government ethics in New York. “But if you give a contribution to my campaign, I can take you to dinner, and we can discuss politics or official business. You, the lobbyist, can give my campaign $1,000, and the campaign can pay for our dinner. That’s perfectly legal, and it’s perfectly dumb.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20lobby.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20lobby.html

grecy 11y ago

>but we aren't at a fundamentally different place politically than we were in, say 1896 I really don't think you should say that like it's a good thing. It's like saying "American is less corrupt than North Korea!" . That's not saying much.

bostik 11y ago
I've been saying something similar for years. Background: I am Finnish. The country routinely tops the world corruption perception index as the least corrupted country in the World. (Not every year, but you get the point.) In my mind, that tells diddly squat about how well things are in Finland. It only highlights how wretched the situation is even in the runner-up country.