6 ms·

Another good step would be to legally bar organizations that directly benefit from jails/prisons from lobbying for any law that is likely to result in more pris

Another good step would be to legally bar organizations that directly benefit from jails/prisons from lobbying for any law that is likely to result in more prisoners or higher sentences. These would include correctional officer/law enforcement unions, bail bond companies, criminal defense attorneys, and any company that derives most of its revenue from selling goods or services to jails/prisons, inmates, or criminal defendants.

Anon1096 10y ago
So basically you want to outlaw lobbying for representation? That's the outcome of your proposals. A union is no different than an individual, except that many people are included in the group. Outlawing lobbying by unions means that I, if I were theoretically a prison guard, can't lobby (ask for representation) from my local lawmakers on issues that I think matter. Is that the world you want to live in? What if this were applied to a group you support, like restricting the EFF's ability to lobby because they have a conflict of interest. I really think that many people advocating any type of lobbying restriction needs to stop and think about the consequences of what they are working towards before proceeding.
- downandout 10y ago
  No, I don't want to "basically outlaw lobbying for representation". I said nothing of the sort. I said that organizations that directly profit from criminal laws shouldn't be able to lobby for them. Criminal laws do tremendous damage to the lives of the people they affect, and as such need to be deliberated without the influence of people that will financially benefit from them. And yes, a world where criminal laws are not able to be influenced by people that will profit from them is definitely one I want to live in.
  - alistairSH 10y ago
    Should we, as software developers and IT professionals, be able to lobby about information security? Net neutrality? If we can't, and Verizon/Cox also can't (they also have a conflict), who is left? People who either don't care or lack enough knowledge of the issue to make reasonable policy recommendations?
    - downandout 10y ago
      Will you directly profit if someone goes to jail as a result of the laws you're lobbying for? That is the only scenario I am talking about here.
      - danso 10y ago
        As a developer not in the Windows ecosystem, I would have definitely benefited from lobbying on behalf of an anti-trust action against Microsoft.
        downandout 10y ago
        Did Microsoft go to jail?
        danso 10y ago
        Being incarcerated is not the only nor the worst affliction that a government can bring down upon you.
        downandout 10y ago
        Ask someone that has been in prison for a while what their opinion on this is. I think they'd disagree.
        danso 10y ago
        Ask someone whose loved ones have been fatally poisoned due to government negligence in rubber-stamping an environmental impact report and I think they'd offer a feisty debate. (Or anyone at the receiving end of military action, for that matter) The point is that drawing a line between lobbying that affects prisons (nevermind a distinction between federal, local, and other institutions of incarceration) and lobbying that affects anything else can be a largely arbitrary affair.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  That is a world I'd like to live in. Such people suffer from a principal/agent problem - they gain more from the government as employees/contractors/etc than as citizens, so their interest is primarily in having more money funneled to them as employees. For this reason, restricting their lobbying/voting/etc activity as one of the terms of receiving government money is perfectly reasonable. The EFF, in contrast, has no such conflict of interest. Any organization which does not take government money is just a consumer of government services. Their interest is the same as everyone else's - encouraging the government to do the best job possible.
  - Anon1096 10y ago
    The EFF "receives" money as part of being a non profit. So yes, they do take government money, and aren't only consumers of government services.
    - dllthomas 10y ago
      > The EFF "receives" money as part of being a non profit. Strictly speaking, you can be a non-profit without any special tax treatment.
  - ikeboy 10y ago
    > Any organization which does not take government money is just a consumer of government services. From the above comment: >bail bond companies, criminal defense attorneys >any company that derives most of its revenue from selling goods or services to ... inmates, or criminal defendants All of those take no government money in the strictest sense.
foresterh 10y ago
That brings up something else that needs a complete overhaul - the lobbying rules, or lack thereof.
bunderbunder 10y ago
Lobbying used to be flat-out illegal in the USA, but, over the past century or so, the Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed it as protected speech under the First Amendment, and therefore something that basically can't be restricted in any meaningful way. So I don't think it - or a number of other socially corrosive aspects of the American political system - is likely to change without an amendment that would be extremely difficult to pass.
- cloudjacker 10y ago
  Maybe we could have a licensing regime for a newly defined lobbying organization, and then delegate the licensing requirements to a federal agency who has unilateral and arbitrary authority to alter licensing compliance one of which will be to drastically limit actions possible for lobbyists
  - GrinningFool 10y ago
    > nd then delegate the licensing requirements to a federal agency who has unilateral and arbitrary authority to alter licensing compliance But then the lobbyists would start lobbying to loosen these restrictions...
    - cloudjacker 10y ago
      yes, they would. in a couple election cycles they'll have their own people running the agency and then that generation of newly politically-aware young adults will have to tackle that I think its a pursuable solution to address today's problem to get a better reflection of what American people want
- Amezarak 10y ago
  The trouble with lobbying is - where do you draw the line? Do I, an individual citizen, have a right to petition my elected representatives? Do I, an individual citizen, have a right to organize with fellow citizens to petition my elected representatives? Do I, an individual citizen, who owns a business, have a right to organize with fellow citizens who own similar businesses to petition my representatives? The problem with lobbying is a fundamental issue with representative democracy, not with the American political system. Lobbying by monied interests is simply more overt in the American system. I can't think of a Western democracy where industry interests don't have a huge say in the legislative and even executive processes. From the perspective of the politician, they are looking out for their constituents by helping out industrial interests, because in their eyes, that means jobs and development. I agree there is a huge problem with the outsized influence of industry in the political realm, but I think it's a very complicated problem to untangle. The only way we have to fight it is to organize ourselves, which is usually extremely difficult.
rayiner 10y ago
> criminal defense attorneys The National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys actively lobbies for drug law reform, sentencing reform, and against civil forfeiture, mandatory minimums, the death penalty, and overcriminalization: https://www.nacdl.org/criminal-defense/death-penalty https://www.nacdl.org/criminal-defense/death-penalty. [1] They're on the front lines of trying to reform the justice system, and your proposal would silence them (because you could just as easily say they "benefit" from those reforms because their clients do). [1] And the bar as a whole is probably way to the left of the average person on criminal justice issues.
- downandout 10y ago
  Please read my comments more carefully before criticizing them. I said that they should be barred from lobbying for "any law that is likely to result in more prisoners or higher sentences". I'd love to see all of these organizations lobby for laws that are likely to result in overall decreases in inmate counts, and/or lower sentences.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    Your proviso is irrelevant to my point: You've concocted this world model that tells you that criminal defense attorneys lobby in favor of stiffer prison sentences because it serves their monetary interests. My point is that your world view is wrong; its not about the merits of your hypothetical ban.
    - downandout 10y ago
      My world view is that anyone that stands to directly profit from laws that are likely to increase the inmate population or average sentence length should not be able to play a part in getting those laws passed.
      - mkopinsky 10y ago
        So the government shouldn't only be deciding who can or can't lobby on a particular issue, but which side of the debate each respective party can or can't be on? "I'm sorry sir, but given your circumstances you may only support these Approved Beliefs."

Anon1096 10y ago

So basically you want to outlaw lobbying for representation? That's the outcome of your proposals. A union is no different than an individual, except that many people are included in the group. Outlawing lobbying by unions means that I, if I were theoretically a prison guard, can't lobby (ask for representation) from my local lawmakers on issues that I think matter. Is that the world you want to live in? What if this were applied to a group you support, like restricting the EFF's ability to lobby because they have a conflict of interest. I really think that many people advocating any type of lobbying restriction needs to stop and think about the consequences of what they are working towards before proceeding.

downandout 10y ago
No, I don't want to "basically outlaw lobbying for representation". I said nothing of the sort. I said that organizations that directly profit from criminal laws shouldn't be able to lobby for them. Criminal laws do tremendous damage to the lives of the people they affect, and as such need to be deliberated without the influence of people that will financially benefit from them. And yes, a world where criminal laws are not able to be influenced by people that will profit from them is definitely one I want to live in.
- alistairSH 10y ago
  Should we, as software developers and IT professionals, be able to lobby about information security? Net neutrality? If we can't, and Verizon/Cox also can't (they also have a conflict), who is left? People who either don't care or lack enough knowledge of the issue to make reasonable policy recommendations?
  - downandout 10y ago
    Will you directly profit if someone goes to jail as a result of the laws you're lobbying for? That is the only scenario I am talking about here.
    - danso 10y ago
      As a developer not in the Windows ecosystem, I would have definitely benefited from lobbying on behalf of an anti-trust action against Microsoft.
      - downandout 10y ago
        Did Microsoft go to jail?
        danso 10y ago
        Being incarcerated is not the only nor the worst affliction that a government can bring down upon you.
        downandout 10y ago
        Ask someone that has been in prison for a while what their opinion on this is. I think they'd disagree.
        danso 10y ago
        Ask someone whose loved ones have been fatally poisoned due to government negligence in rubber-stamping an environmental impact report and I think they'd offer a feisty debate. (Or anyone at the receiving end of military action, for that matter) The point is that drawing a line between lobbying that affects prisons (nevermind a distinction between federal, local, and other institutions of incarceration) and lobbying that affects anything else can be a largely arbitrary affair.
yummyfajitas 10y ago
That is a world I'd like to live in. Such people suffer from a principal/agent problem - they gain more from the government as employees/contractors/etc than as citizens, so their interest is primarily in having more money funneled to them as employees. For this reason, restricting their lobbying/voting/etc activity as one of the terms of receiving government money is perfectly reasonable. The EFF, in contrast, has no such conflict of interest. Any organization which does not take government money is just a consumer of government services. Their interest is the same as everyone else's - encouraging the government to do the best job possible.
- Anon1096 10y ago
  The EFF "receives" money as part of being a non profit. So yes, they do take government money, and aren't only consumers of government services.
  - dllthomas 10y ago
    > The EFF "receives" money as part of being a non profit. Strictly speaking, you can be a non-profit without any special tax treatment.
- ikeboy 10y ago
  > Any organization which does not take government money is just a consumer of government services. From the above comment: >bail bond companies, criminal defense attorneys >any company that derives most of its revenue from selling goods or services to ... inmates, or criminal defendants All of those take no government money in the strictest sense.

foresterh 10y ago

That brings up something else that needs a complete overhaul - the lobbying rules, or lack thereof.

bunderbunder 10y ago

Lobbying used to be flat-out illegal in the USA, but, over the past century or so, the Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed it as protected speech under the First Amendment, and therefore something that basically can't be restricted in any meaningful way. So I don't think it - or a number of other socially corrosive aspects of the American political system - is likely to change without an amendment that would be extremely difficult to pass.

cloudjacker 10y ago
Maybe we could have a licensing regime for a newly defined lobbying organization, and then delegate the licensing requirements to a federal agency who has unilateral and arbitrary authority to alter licensing compliance one of which will be to drastically limit actions possible for lobbyists
- GrinningFool 10y ago
  > nd then delegate the licensing requirements to a federal agency who has unilateral and arbitrary authority to alter licensing compliance But then the lobbyists would start lobbying to loosen these restrictions...
  - cloudjacker 10y ago
    yes, they would. in a couple election cycles they'll have their own people running the agency and then that generation of newly politically-aware young adults will have to tackle that I think its a pursuable solution to address today's problem to get a better reflection of what American people want
Amezarak 10y ago
The trouble with lobbying is - where do you draw the line? Do I, an individual citizen, have a right to petition my elected representatives? Do I, an individual citizen, have a right to organize with fellow citizens to petition my elected representatives? Do I, an individual citizen, who owns a business, have a right to organize with fellow citizens who own similar businesses to petition my representatives? The problem with lobbying is a fundamental issue with representative democracy, not with the American political system. Lobbying by monied interests is simply more overt in the American system. I can't think of a Western democracy where industry interests don't have a huge say in the legislative and even executive processes. From the perspective of the politician, they are looking out for their constituents by helping out industrial interests, because in their eyes, that means jobs and development. I agree there is a huge problem with the outsized influence of industry in the political realm, but I think it's a very complicated problem to untangle. The only way we have to fight it is to organize ourselves, which is usually extremely difficult.

rayiner 10y ago

> criminal defense attorneys The National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys actively lobbies for drug law reform, sentencing reform, and against civil forfeiture, mandatory minimums, the death penalty, and overcriminalization: https://www.nacdl.org/criminal-defense/death-penalty https://www.nacdl.org/criminal-defense/death-penalty. [1] They're on the front lines of trying to reform the justice system, and your proposal would silence them (because you could just as easily say they "benefit" from those reforms because their clients do). [1] And the bar as a whole is probably way to the left of the average person on criminal justice issues.

downandout 10y ago
Please read my comments more carefully before criticizing them. I said that they should be barred from lobbying for "any law that is likely to result in more prisoners or higher sentences". I'd love to see all of these organizations lobby for laws that are likely to result in overall decreases in inmate counts, and/or lower sentences.
- rayiner 10y ago
  Your proviso is irrelevant to my point: You've concocted this world model that tells you that criminal defense attorneys lobby in favor of stiffer prison sentences because it serves their monetary interests. My point is that your world view is wrong; its not about the merits of your hypothetical ban.
  - downandout 10y ago
    My world view is that anyone that stands to directly profit from laws that are likely to increase the inmate population or average sentence length should not be able to play a part in getting those laws passed.
    - mkopinsky 10y ago
      So the government shouldn't only be deciding who can or can't lobby on a particular issue, but which side of the debate each respective party can or can't be on? "I'm sorry sir, but given your circumstances you may only support these Approved Beliefs."