5 ms·

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 th

by 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.
- bdavisx 10y ago
  The problem is that the US Supreme Court said that money is free speech, so covered by the 1st amendment. So much corruption has flowed from that decision that it's almost unbelievable.
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.

by abpavel 10y ago

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.
bdavisx 10y ago
The problem is that the US Supreme Court said that money is free speech, so covered by the 1st amendment. So much corruption has flowed from that decision that it's almost unbelievable.

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.