5 ms·

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 F

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.
- milcron 10y ago
  Lobbying as a citizen who happens to own a business is different from a business itself lobbying. I'm perfectly fine with the former.
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    But then you somehow need to encode that belief into law in a way that doesn't trample on the constitution. And maybe this is a bug in the system, but trying to fix it has some truly scary question marks attached.
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      There's nothing about the US Constitution that says that different elements of it don't conflict. The question precisely is working out where boundaries exist, and what trade-offs to make.
      - Karunamon 10y ago
        No, but changing the constitution is not a minor affair. You can't just propose one amendment through the legislative process, you have to launch a convention, and the country you get on the other side of that may not have much in common with the country now.
        Amezarak 10y ago
        You certainly can change the Constitution without a convention. The federal legislature passes it with a 2/3rds vote and then the states ratify it.
    - milcron 10y ago
      I don't think this boundary would be that difficult to delineate and enforce. Political donations ought to come from personal bank accounts rather than corporate ones. Is it any more difficult than that?
SilasX 10y ago
What does that even mean, to "ban lobbying"? You can't approach legislators and advocate for legislation?
specialist 10y ago
Please don't conflate lobbying with bribes. We all have the right to lobby (petition) our government. Various Supremes expanded the notion that corporations are people, that money equals speech, and so forth. So many ways to rig the game in favor of capital (over democracy). As an optimist, I predict the plutocrats will demand public financing of campaigns when they realized they're wasting their money. The money chase is an arms race with ever diminishing returns.
- bunderbunder 10y ago
  In this context, "lobby" doesn't just mean petitioning the government. It specifically means when you have someone whose full-time job is to try and influence legislators and other policymakers on behalf of one's employer. In the early USA it was considered antithetical to democracy precisely because it gives a great advantage to people with the financial resources to hire a lobbyist. So for over 200 years now, the word "lobbying" has already had a particular definition in the context of the money=speech debate. I don't think that trying to redefine the the term in the way you propose makes your point so much as it hinders it by muddying the waters.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- swyman 10y ago
  Fun fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad_Co.#Headnote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern...
noobermin 10y ago
>extremely difficult You underestimate the will and anger of the American people.

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.

milcron 10y ago
Lobbying as a citizen who happens to own a business is different from a business itself lobbying. I'm perfectly fine with the former.
- Karunamon 10y ago
  But then you somehow need to encode that belief into law in a way that doesn't trample on the constitution. And maybe this is a bug in the system, but trying to fix it has some truly scary question marks attached.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    There's nothing about the US Constitution that says that different elements of it don't conflict. The question precisely is working out where boundaries exist, and what trade-offs to make.
    - Karunamon 10y ago
      No, but changing the constitution is not a minor affair. You can't just propose one amendment through the legislative process, you have to launch a convention, and the country you get on the other side of that may not have much in common with the country now.
      - Amezarak 10y ago
        You certainly can change the Constitution without a convention. The federal legislature passes it with a 2/3rds vote and then the states ratify it.
  - milcron 10y ago
    I don't think this boundary would be that difficult to delineate and enforce. Political donations ought to come from personal bank accounts rather than corporate ones. Is it any more difficult than that?

SilasX 10y ago

What does that even mean, to "ban lobbying"? You can't approach legislators and advocate for legislation?

specialist 10y ago

Please don't conflate lobbying with bribes. We all have the right to lobby (petition) our government. Various Supremes expanded the notion that corporations are people, that money equals speech, and so forth. So many ways to rig the game in favor of capital (over democracy). As an optimist, I predict the plutocrats will demand public financing of campaigns when they realized they're wasting their money. The money chase is an arms race with ever diminishing returns.

bunderbunder 10y ago
In this context, "lobby" doesn't just mean petitioning the government. It specifically means when you have someone whose full-time job is to try and influence legislators and other policymakers on behalf of one's employer. In the early USA it was considered antithetical to democracy precisely because it gives a great advantage to people with the financial resources to hire a lobbyist. So for over 200 years now, the word "lobbying" has already had a particular definition in the context of the money=speech debate. I don't think that trying to redefine the the term in the way you propose makes your point so much as it hinders it by muddying the waters.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
swyman 10y ago
Fun fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad_Co.#Headnote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern...

noobermin 10y ago

>extremely difficult You underestimate the will and anger of the American people.