5 ms·

Is lobbying really helpful for the people in the US? For me, it looks like it always benefits the companies and the politicians. Lobbying is illegal in many cou

Is lobbying really helpful for the people in the US? For me, it looks like it always benefits the companies and the politicians. Lobbying is illegal in many countries. Why is it allowed there? Under what thoughts? Can someone explain, please? EDIT: Quickly checked Google. An Investopedia article argues that it's not bribery because it benefits everyone in the country. But we can see that it's always so that the companies make more money right? Only the rich keep getting more money. Also, the article seems to have been written by a lobbying enthusiast!

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> Is lobbying really helpful for the people in the US? The EFF [1] and ACLU [2] are lobbyists. We have a problem in the U.S. with money and politics, but lobbying per se is a natural consequence of the First Amendmenr. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Frontier_Foundation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Frontier_Foundati... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Uni...
- username223 9y ago
  It's not just the first amendment, but a three-step failure: (1) government can't restrict people's speech (first amendment); (2) for-profit corporations are "people"; (3) money is speech. That gave us Citizens United[1], and as long as politicians are a bit more subtle than Duke Cunningham[2], it's allowed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Cunningham#/media/File:Duke_bribe_menu.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Cunningham#/media/File:Du...
  - gt_ 9y ago
    This is helpful for illustrating the manipulative nature of a society which has normalized unexplainable support of brands and advertising. Of course, the reasons to believe (2) and (3) were enacted as a means to a different end are bottomless. They were accomplished by undermining our cultural, emotional, existential perceptions of the world we live in and depleting our capacity to make intelligent decisions. How was this accomplished? By advertising; the same things motivating Facebook’s entire business model. (and Google’s) Our campaign financing norms are absurd, and have unruprisingly ruining our whole political complex.
- r00fus 9y ago
  That non-profits play the lobbying game only means that lobbying has won. I'm pretty sure if you asked them EFF and ACLU would support restrictions on lobbying - they can't compete against billions of dollars funded by well funded corporations.
  - sosborn 9y ago
    > they can't compete against billions of dollars funded by well funded corporations. How would getting rid of lobbying change that equation? If lobbying was gone, what mechanism would be used to discuss issues with legislators?
    - r00fus 9y ago
      They would rely on mobilized grassroots action. Which would be far more effective if we weren't getting shouted out of the room by lobbyists in the first place.
    - xab9 9y ago
      In countries where lobbying is illegal I'm pretty sure there are other more (or less?) democratic processes in place to communicate the needs of the people and business be that big or small.
    - wvenable 9y ago
      It's literally the job of legislators to discuss issues with stakeholders to create or repeal laws or regulations. Without lobbying, do you expect politicians to just sit in their offices all day doing nothing?
      - vkou 9y ago
        I expect them to not do so in a pay-to-play manner. As it is, requests for public comment - the feedback to them goes straight into the paper shredder, but if you throw a bit of money towards the re-election fund, you can write the legislature. It's corruption, pure and simple.
- vijaybritto 9y ago
  The examples of EFF and ACLU are okay and I'm pretty sure that there are hundreds of well intended lobbying groups in the US. But, I'm often confused by the lack of control or checks for private players with a lot of money like for example, Intuit which blocks easy tax return filing, NRA which blocks gun control/ban, Facebook which blocks privacy bill, etc., There must be so many other examples that an outsider like me cannot comprehend or understand. So how come this is allowed without any protest? It looks like the first amendment is being used to disguise crony capitalism!
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - neltnerb 9y ago
    Yes, it is hard to explain. Something about those companies employee shareholders individually having free speech rights via the company that they own. It was a recent change. I don't really mind companies lobbying for things, I suspect that it has more good than bad from open lines of communication of needs from the business community. But the balance has to be right. It shouldn't be one company drowning out a million people. The NRA is at least made up of real human members. Who shockingly donated $85M to them in since 2005. I may dislike their point of view, but they certainly deserve to be able to lobby.
    - vijaybritto 9y ago
      People get killed in thousands because of them. I'm not sure if they should enjoy this kind of a freedom!
- colordrops 9y ago
  How exactly is it a natural consequence of the first amendment?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> Is lobbying really helpful for the people in the US? The EFF [1] and ACLU [2] are lobbyists. We have a problem in the U.S. with money and politics, but lobbying per se is a natural consequence of the First Amendmenr. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Frontier_Foundation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Frontier_Foundati... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Uni...

username223 9y ago
It's not just the first amendment, but a three-step failure: (1) government can't restrict people's speech (first amendment); (2) for-profit corporations are "people"; (3) money is speech. That gave us Citizens United[1], and as long as politicians are a bit more subtle than Duke Cunningham[2], it's allowed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Cunningham#/media/File:Duke_bribe_menu.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Cunningham#/media/File:Du...
- gt_ 9y ago
  This is helpful for illustrating the manipulative nature of a society which has normalized unexplainable support of brands and advertising. Of course, the reasons to believe (2) and (3) were enacted as a means to a different end are bottomless. They were accomplished by undermining our cultural, emotional, existential perceptions of the world we live in and depleting our capacity to make intelligent decisions. How was this accomplished? By advertising; the same things motivating Facebook’s entire business model. (and Google’s) Our campaign financing norms are absurd, and have unruprisingly ruining our whole political complex.
r00fus 9y ago
That non-profits play the lobbying game only means that lobbying has won. I'm pretty sure if you asked them EFF and ACLU would support restrictions on lobbying - they can't compete against billions of dollars funded by well funded corporations.
- sosborn 9y ago
  > they can't compete against billions of dollars funded by well funded corporations. How would getting rid of lobbying change that equation? If lobbying was gone, what mechanism would be used to discuss issues with legislators?
  - r00fus 9y ago
    They would rely on mobilized grassroots action. Which would be far more effective if we weren't getting shouted out of the room by lobbyists in the first place.
  - xab9 9y ago
    In countries where lobbying is illegal I'm pretty sure there are other more (or less?) democratic processes in place to communicate the needs of the people and business be that big or small.
  - wvenable 9y ago
    It's literally the job of legislators to discuss issues with stakeholders to create or repeal laws or regulations. Without lobbying, do you expect politicians to just sit in their offices all day doing nothing?
    - vkou 9y ago
      I expect them to not do so in a pay-to-play manner. As it is, requests for public comment - the feedback to them goes straight into the paper shredder, but if you throw a bit of money towards the re-election fund, you can write the legislature. It's corruption, pure and simple.
vijaybritto 9y ago
The examples of EFF and ACLU are okay and I'm pretty sure that there are hundreds of well intended lobbying groups in the US. But, I'm often confused by the lack of control or checks for private players with a lot of money like for example, Intuit which blocks easy tax return filing, NRA which blocks gun control/ban, Facebook which blocks privacy bill, etc., There must be so many other examples that an outsider like me cannot comprehend or understand. So how come this is allowed without any protest? It looks like the first amendment is being used to disguise crony capitalism!
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- neltnerb 9y ago
  Yes, it is hard to explain. Something about those companies employee shareholders individually having free speech rights via the company that they own. It was a recent change. I don't really mind companies lobbying for things, I suspect that it has more good than bad from open lines of communication of needs from the business community. But the balance has to be right. It shouldn't be one company drowning out a million people. The NRA is at least made up of real human members. Who shockingly donated $85M to them in since 2005. I may dislike their point of view, but they certainly deserve to be able to lobby.
  - vijaybritto 9y ago
    People get killed in thousands because of them. I'm not sure if they should enjoy this kind of a freedom!
colordrops 9y ago
How exactly is it a natural consequence of the first amendment?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]