6 ms·

Every time I see an article explaining why system so-and-so is corrupt, the answer is always "companies lobby politicians with campaign donations". Why is it s

Every time I see an article explaining why system so-and-so is corrupt, the answer is always "companies lobby politicians with campaign donations". Why is it so hard for publications to use the word "bribe" instead?

ghostDancer 10y ago
I always have seen it as a legalized corruption. You can't buy a politician but if you give money to fund a campaign instead of giving it directly, it's not corruption. That's prostitution of a democracy.
CapitalistCartr 10y ago
Unless the publication can prove quid-pro-quo, they would be open to charges of defamation.
abpavel 10y ago
It would be illegal for the article to call lobbying a bribe, because lobbying is a legal form of bribery, while bribery is illegal form of the same. However they can argue that really there is no difference between the two, and that would be legal. The issue is that the majority thinks that lobbying is ok, while bribing is not. Once you fix that, then you can call it "bribing".
- gpderetta 10y ago
  > It would be illegal for the article to call lobbying a bribe which law would be violated?
  - cderwin 10y ago
    Presumably OP is thinking of libel laws, because accusing someone of talking a bribe is tantamount to accusing them of breaking one of any amount of anti-corruption laws. I'm (extremely) doubtful of the claim since the plaintiff would have to prove in a court of law that bribery can only possibly refer to a specific action (breaking one of the above laws) that he did not commit. Though the threat of a lawsuit may be enough.
  - thedufer 10y ago
    Falsely claiming that a company committed a crime might run afoul of libel laws? That's the only thing I can think of.
    - gpderetta 10y ago
      yes, but the article talks generically about "drug companies", there would be no specific company that could claim to be affected.
- afarrell 10y ago
  Part of the problem is that lobbying is explicitly protected by the 1st amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" How would one prohibit lobbying without also prohibiting petitioning for a redress of grievances?
  - noobermin 10y ago
    Many of us don't think lobbying should be illegal or wrong, just that the law accept that the "free speech" of a corporation and special interest groups will always overpower that of individuals.
    - afarrell 10y ago
      This is a natural result of the fact that: 1) Printing presses are expensive and always have been. 2) It is possible to be more effective at things in general by working in a group, especially one with division of labor. Can you imagine a world in which a disorganized mass of individuals without training was more effective at advocacy than the EFF?
      - zaroth 10y ago
        The modern "printing press" is decidedly not expensive!
    - wtbob 10y ago
      > just that the law accept that the "free speech" of a corporation and special interest groups will always overpower that of individuals. What about a body of individuals acting together — viz., a corporation? Do individuals lose their right to free speech in your world when they group together? If so, that seems like it would put power firmly in the hands of the already-powerful.
    - snowwrestler 10y ago
      Every issue you care about is represented by a "special interest," including issues of individual liberty. The idea that corporations always win is obviously wrong; the entire environmental and labor union movements are testaments to how citizen organizing can outweigh corporate interests before the federal government.
- snowwrestler 10y ago
  Most lobbying has nothing to do with campaign donations. People have to register when they work as federal lobbyists. If you look through the rolls you will see that most lobbyists make few if any campaign donations. And most people making campaign donations (especially the big ones) are not lobbyists. When you see a headline like "Google spent millions on lobbying", none of that money, not one cent, went to a politician or political campaign. The "lobbying spending" that gets reported for companies is the money that paid for salaries, technologies, office space, ads, printing costs, etc. One of the challenges in the U.S. today is that so few people understand how this stuff actually works.
yourapostasy 10y ago
You will find that the entirety of the legal system, the world over, is like this. Asm/C/C++/similar programmers have no problem with the concept of pointers and one or more levels of indirection, but the gap between indirection abstraction and judicial practice likely stems from having to use statistical inference to apply the concept in law enforcement, and that's a judicial show-stopper for generally sound reasons in much of criminal law. We might be seeing some of the complexity of some classes of white collar crime and their fast-moving evolution vastly outstrip judicial concepts rooted in more prosaic criminal activities, with a simple single level of indirection capable of stymieing most laws aimed at sophisticated white collar crime. Pretty much anytime you see laws and regulations erected to prevent white collar crime above a certain level of sophistication (perhaps way above check kiting, and somewhat below securities fraud), if you look for ways to factor responsibilities and roles between separated parties and add one or more levels of indirection, then you will have found a way to flout law with impunity. As long as you are familiar with the lay of the legal and regulatory land, it is (for programmers) a fairly simple algorithm to defeat these laws. It raises the buy-in cost of the scam, but that just raises barriers to entry to competitors for those who are in on the scam. The scammers are way faster adapting than the judicial system. It is analogous to the cat and mouse game between designer drugs versus drug enforcement agencies, but far more consistently profitable for the scammers, much, much faster evolution on the scammers' side of the equation, considerably more insurance/protection angles for the scammers (in both legal, regulatory and political forms), and immensely more damaging to average people.
afarrell 10y ago
Because actual quid-pro-quo bribery is illegal and is distinct from the activity taking place.
leakybit 10y ago
To not lobby, you essentially leave the fate of an industry to a politician who has zero knowledge on the subject.
- GordonS 10y ago
  And with lobbying you allow whoever has the most cash to 'educate' politicians to shape laws in their favor. There has to be a better way.

ghostDancer 10y ago

I always have seen it as a legalized corruption. You can't buy a politician but if you give money to fund a campaign instead of giving it directly, it's not corruption. That's prostitution of a democracy.

CapitalistCartr 10y ago

Unless the publication can prove quid-pro-quo, they would be open to charges of defamation.

abpavel 10y ago

It would be illegal for the article to call lobbying a bribe, because lobbying is a legal form of bribery, while bribery is illegal form of the same. However they can argue that really there is no difference between the two, and that would be legal. The issue is that the majority thinks that lobbying is ok, while bribing is not. Once you fix that, then you can call it "bribing".

gpderetta 10y ago
> It would be illegal for the article to call lobbying a bribe which law would be violated?
- cderwin 10y ago
  Presumably OP is thinking of libel laws, because accusing someone of talking a bribe is tantamount to accusing them of breaking one of any amount of anti-corruption laws. I'm (extremely) doubtful of the claim since the plaintiff would have to prove in a court of law that bribery can only possibly refer to a specific action (breaking one of the above laws) that he did not commit. Though the threat of a lawsuit may be enough.
- thedufer 10y ago
  Falsely claiming that a company committed a crime might run afoul of libel laws? That's the only thing I can think of.
  - gpderetta 10y ago
    yes, but the article talks generically about "drug companies", there would be no specific company that could claim to be affected.
afarrell 10y ago
Part of the problem is that lobbying is explicitly protected by the 1st amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" How would one prohibit lobbying without also prohibiting petitioning for a redress of grievances?
- noobermin 10y ago
  Many of us don't think lobbying should be illegal or wrong, just that the law accept that the "free speech" of a corporation and special interest groups will always overpower that of individuals.
  - afarrell 10y ago
    This is a natural result of the fact that: 1) Printing presses are expensive and always have been. 2) It is possible to be more effective at things in general by working in a group, especially one with division of labor. Can you imagine a world in which a disorganized mass of individuals without training was more effective at advocacy than the EFF?
    - zaroth 10y ago
      The modern "printing press" is decidedly not expensive!
  - wtbob 10y ago
    > just that the law accept that the "free speech" of a corporation and special interest groups will always overpower that of individuals. What about a body of individuals acting together — viz., a corporation? Do individuals lose their right to free speech in your world when they group together? If so, that seems like it would put power firmly in the hands of the already-powerful.
  - snowwrestler 10y ago
    Every issue you care about is represented by a "special interest," including issues of individual liberty. The idea that corporations always win is obviously wrong; the entire environmental and labor union movements are testaments to how citizen organizing can outweigh corporate interests before the federal government.
snowwrestler 10y ago
Most lobbying has nothing to do with campaign donations. People have to register when they work as federal lobbyists. If you look through the rolls you will see that most lobbyists make few if any campaign donations. And most people making campaign donations (especially the big ones) are not lobbyists. When you see a headline like "Google spent millions on lobbying", none of that money, not one cent, went to a politician or political campaign. The "lobbying spending" that gets reported for companies is the money that paid for salaries, technologies, office space, ads, printing costs, etc. One of the challenges in the U.S. today is that so few people understand how this stuff actually works.

yourapostasy 10y ago

You will find that the entirety of the legal system, the world over, is like this. Asm/C/C++/similar programmers have no problem with the concept of pointers and one or more levels of indirection, but the gap between indirection abstraction and judicial practice likely stems from having to use statistical inference to apply the concept in law enforcement, and that's a judicial show-stopper for generally sound reasons in much of criminal law. We might be seeing some of the complexity of some classes of white collar crime and their fast-moving evolution vastly outstrip judicial concepts rooted in more prosaic criminal activities, with a simple single level of indirection capable of stymieing most laws aimed at sophisticated white collar crime. Pretty much anytime you see laws and regulations erected to prevent white collar crime above a certain level of sophistication (perhaps way above check kiting, and somewhat below securities fraud), if you look for ways to factor responsibilities and roles between separated parties and add one or more levels of indirection, then you will have found a way to flout law with impunity. As long as you are familiar with the lay of the legal and regulatory land, it is (for programmers) a fairly simple algorithm to defeat these laws. It raises the buy-in cost of the scam, but that just raises barriers to entry to competitors for those who are in on the scam. The scammers are way faster adapting than the judicial system. It is analogous to the cat and mouse game between designer drugs versus drug enforcement agencies, but far more consistently profitable for the scammers, much, much faster evolution on the scammers' side of the equation, considerably more insurance/protection angles for the scammers (in both legal, regulatory and political forms), and immensely more damaging to average people.

afarrell 10y ago

Because actual quid-pro-quo bribery is illegal and is distinct from the activity taking place.

leakybit 10y ago

To not lobby, you essentially leave the fate of an industry to a politician who has zero knowledge on the subject.

GordonS 10y ago
And with lobbying you allow whoever has the most cash to 'educate' politicians to shape laws in their favor. There has to be a better way.