4 ms·

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 proh

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.
- afarrell 10y ago
  The phenomenon described in the article predates some anti-Hillary nonprofit trying to publish a movie attacking her. Btw, If you want to advance policy around this, I would recommend reading the arguments around it. They are all laid out for the public: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/08-205P.ZX https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/08-205P.ZX
- Lazare 10y ago
  > the US Supreme Court said that money is free speech That is untrue. The court did not rule that "money is speech", nor did it rule that spending money is a protected activity. Rather, it ruled that spending money can facilitate a protected activity, and that laws which restrict people's ability to participate in protected activities are subject to scrutiny. We can argue about exactly where the line should be drawn, but the framework is in my view obviously correct, and is one which we apply to every other right. Money is not abortion, but that doesn't mean Texas can pass a law saying no one can spend more than $5 on an abortion, because people have a right to choose an abortion, and exercising that right, in some cases, can cost money. > So much corruption has flowed from that decision that it's almost unbelievable. Actually, you're right: I don't believe it. In my experience the most strident critics of the decision rarely understand how limited it was, how little it changed, or how weird the rules were prior to the decision. If I had a dollar for every anti-Citizen's United rant that focused on behaviour which had been legal for decades...
  - rayiner 10y ago
    > Money is not abortion, but that doesn't mean Texas can pass a law saying no one can spend more than $5 on an abortion, because people have a right to choose an abortion, and exercising that right, in some cases, can cost money. That's a great analogy, I'm stealing it.

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.

afarrell 10y ago
The phenomenon described in the article predates some anti-Hillary nonprofit trying to publish a movie attacking her. Btw, If you want to advance policy around this, I would recommend reading the arguments around it. They are all laid out for the public: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/08-205P.ZX https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/08-205P.ZX
Lazare 10y ago
> the US Supreme Court said that money is free speech That is untrue. The court did not rule that "money is speech", nor did it rule that spending money is a protected activity. Rather, it ruled that spending money can facilitate a protected activity, and that laws which restrict people's ability to participate in protected activities are subject to scrutiny. We can argue about exactly where the line should be drawn, but the framework is in my view obviously correct, and is one which we apply to every other right. Money is not abortion, but that doesn't mean Texas can pass a law saying no one can spend more than $5 on an abortion, because people have a right to choose an abortion, and exercising that right, in some cases, can cost money. > So much corruption has flowed from that decision that it's almost unbelievable. Actually, you're right: I don't believe it. In my experience the most strident critics of the decision rarely understand how limited it was, how little it changed, or how weird the rules were prior to the decision. If I had a dollar for every anti-Citizen's United rant that focused on behaviour which had been legal for decades...
- rayiner 10y ago
  > Money is not abortion, but that doesn't mean Texas can pass a law saying no one can spend more than $5 on an abortion, because people have a right to choose an abortion, and exercising that right, in some cases, can cost money. That's a great analogy, I'm stealing it.