9 ms·

What are some arguments for money in politics; lobbying?

by curiousgal 9y ago

sampo 9y ago
That the alternative might be worse?
- mtgx 9y ago
  That could be an excuse for everything.
- ionised 9y ago
  This is a meaningless statement.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  I can't possibly see how. Limit every American to $500 of political donations a year. Everyone has the right to speech, but no one has the right to more speech than another.
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
(1) If you have wealth in a society, you have more to lose from its downfall than the average Joe. Counterpoint: you can now afford to hedge your bets, financially, and flee. (2) It takes skill and savvy to make money. Overweighting their influence will produce a fitter society. (Interesting aside: British university graduates and property owners got double, sometimes triple, votes through 1948 [1].) Counterpoint: this requires high intergenerational income mobility. A lack of mobility from the lower classes up is a problem in the long run, but a lack of mobility from the upper classes down is toxic in the short: you'll have idiots with tuborcharged influence. As to lobbying, that's unavoidable in a democracy. You will need insiders to explain the system to legislators. Banning lobbying means forcing the legislature to make decisions in the dark. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_voting#United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_voting#United_Kingdom
- mtgx 9y ago
  But we're supposed to be a democratic country where everyone's vote is "equal". The money is speech thing completely bypasses and greatly skews that rule. It's like a parallel voting system where a wealthy person's "vote" is quantified in the amount of dollars he or she spends to buy politicians. Also, wealthy people will almost always prefer pro-small taxes politicians, on either party. So they will fund either Republicans or Democrats that think that way (especially with Democrats that have a "public position and a private one"). Allowing money to decide rank in society is what we normally call corruption, because it also bypasses laws, like when rich people get away with crimes, because they have money and influence. That's not how it should work, right? Similarly, I very much doubt that having mostly rich people buying politicians is how a democracy should work, too.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    In America, “one person, one vote” only arose in the 1960s. The Constitution was framed with suffrage for only land-owning white men. > That's not how it should work, right? That’s a big question. I don’t think it’s safe to presume it’s answer.
    - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
      ...what? You think a society where some votes count more than others is better? That seems to only be possible if you presume that you/people-who-think-like-you-do would be the ones with more votes.
      - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
        >...what? You think a society where some votes count more than others is better? That seems to only be possible if you presume that you/people-who-think-like-you-do would be the ones with more votes. I'm sure if we gave felons a vote that counted as 1/2 a non-felon plenty of them would vote. I think a system where your vote starts at 3/4 value in state elections and increases to 1 after you've been a resident for 10yr. Weighting the opinion of a newcomer less is pretty standard in pretty much every group decision other than voting.
humanrebar 9y ago
There's no way to have meaningful freedoms of speech, assembly, and petition while the government decides what counts as "fair" speech, assembly, and petition. Lobbying is literally talking to people in power. It involves money because advertising and marketing aren't free. A special interest group is literally a group of people who want to talk about a particular set of issues. So to return a question, what are some plans for limiting lobbying and money that don't violate the rights to petition, assembly, and speech? Minus points if the new rules help incumbent powers erect new barriers to talking to elected officials.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  I read about an interesting proposal, it goes like this: American law has a distinction for items you can own but not buy or sell, for example a kidney. You can have a kidney, you just can't sell it and if you're lacking one, you just can't buy it. Similarly, lobbying should be classified like kidneys. You or I or anyone else has the ability to talk to our congressperson or assemble outside their office or petition them, we just can't sell that ability to anyone else. Nor can some CEO buy a 'lobbyist' or anyone else to go speak for them. The first amendment stays preserved that way.
  - xbzbanna 9y ago
    So the people who are the most articulate, beautiful, connected, and who have the free time will be successful lobbying for their own interests, but won't be able to rent out their time to lobby for others.
    - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
      Well it's not a total fix for our broken system - there's a lot more fixes I could list here to help remove money from the political system - publically funded elections, ranked choice voting, total PAC transparency, etc. - but it would be better than what we have now which is the people with the most $$$ being successful in lobbying for their interests.
  - 9y ago
lr4444lr 9y ago
Ask it on another level: what is money in politics? In-kind services? Donating your employees' time? Allowing use of facilities during off-hours? Selling someone something way below market value so they can turn it around for a profit? Campaign finance is tricky stuff.

What are some arguments for money in politics; lobbying?

sampo 9y ago

That the alternative might be worse?

mtgx 9y ago
That could be an excuse for everything.
ionised 9y ago
This is a meaningless statement.
s73ver_ 9y ago
I can't possibly see how. Limit every American to $500 of political donations a year. Everyone has the right to speech, but no one has the right to more speech than another.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

(1) If you have wealth in a society, you have more to lose from its downfall than the average Joe. Counterpoint: you can now afford to hedge your bets, financially, and flee. (2) It takes skill and savvy to make money. Overweighting their influence will produce a fitter society. (Interesting aside: British university graduates and property owners got double, sometimes triple, votes through 1948 [1].) Counterpoint: this requires high intergenerational income mobility. A lack of mobility from the lower classes up is a problem in the long run, but a lack of mobility from the upper classes down is toxic in the short: you'll have idiots with tuborcharged influence. As to lobbying, that's unavoidable in a democracy. You will need insiders to explain the system to legislators. Banning lobbying means forcing the legislature to make decisions in the dark. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_voting#United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_voting#United_Kingdom

mtgx 9y ago
But we're supposed to be a democratic country where everyone's vote is "equal". The money is speech thing completely bypasses and greatly skews that rule. It's like a parallel voting system where a wealthy person's "vote" is quantified in the amount of dollars he or she spends to buy politicians. Also, wealthy people will almost always prefer pro-small taxes politicians, on either party. So they will fund either Republicans or Democrats that think that way (especially with Democrats that have a "public position and a private one"). Allowing money to decide rank in society is what we normally call corruption, because it also bypasses laws, like when rich people get away with crimes, because they have money and influence. That's not how it should work, right? Similarly, I very much doubt that having mostly rich people buying politicians is how a democracy should work, too.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  In America, “one person, one vote” only arose in the 1960s. The Constitution was framed with suffrage for only land-owning white men. > That's not how it should work, right? That’s a big question. I don’t think it’s safe to presume it’s answer.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    ...what? You think a society where some votes count more than others is better? That seems to only be possible if you presume that you/people-who-think-like-you-do would be the ones with more votes.
    - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
      >...what? You think a society where some votes count more than others is better? That seems to only be possible if you presume that you/people-who-think-like-you-do would be the ones with more votes. I'm sure if we gave felons a vote that counted as 1/2 a non-felon plenty of them would vote. I think a system where your vote starts at 3/4 value in state elections and increases to 1 after you've been a resident for 10yr. Weighting the opinion of a newcomer less is pretty standard in pretty much every group decision other than voting.

humanrebar 9y ago

There's no way to have meaningful freedoms of speech, assembly, and petition while the government decides what counts as "fair" speech, assembly, and petition. Lobbying is literally talking to people in power. It involves money because advertising and marketing aren't free. A special interest group is literally a group of people who want to talk about a particular set of issues. So to return a question, what are some plans for limiting lobbying and money that don't violate the rights to petition, assembly, and speech? Minus points if the new rules help incumbent powers erect new barriers to talking to elected officials.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
I read about an interesting proposal, it goes like this: American law has a distinction for items you can own but not buy or sell, for example a kidney. You can have a kidney, you just can't sell it and if you're lacking one, you just can't buy it. Similarly, lobbying should be classified like kidneys. You or I or anyone else has the ability to talk to our congressperson or assemble outside their office or petition them, we just can't sell that ability to anyone else. Nor can some CEO buy a 'lobbyist' or anyone else to go speak for them. The first amendment stays preserved that way.
- xbzbanna 9y ago
  So the people who are the most articulate, beautiful, connected, and who have the free time will be successful lobbying for their own interests, but won't be able to rent out their time to lobby for others.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    Well it's not a total fix for our broken system - there's a lot more fixes I could list here to help remove money from the political system - publically funded elections, ranked choice voting, total PAC transparency, etc. - but it would be better than what we have now which is the people with the most $$$ being successful in lobbying for their interests.
- 9y ago

lr4444lr 9y ago

Ask it on another level: what is money in politics? In-kind services? Donating your employees' time? Allowing use of facilities during off-hours? Selling someone something way below market value so they can turn it around for a profit? Campaign finance is tricky stuff.