5 ms·

> 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 go

> 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.
  - sosborn 9y ago
    How is lobbying pay-to-play?
- vijaybritto 9y ago
  Yes, they should do their jobs without any extra nudging I suppose?
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > they should do their jobs without any extra nudging I suppose? Consider a U.S. Senator representing Arkansas considering a bill regulating nuclear energy. The Senator is no expert in nukes. How should he determine to whom to speak? If a renowned nuclear physicist in California wants to speak with the Senator, should that be banned? Lobbying, i.e. people--individually or in assembly--expressing their political views to elected leaders, is an inherent side effect of the First Amendment. (And, I'd argue, of democracy.)
    - wvenable 9y ago
      Why is money involved, though?
      - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
        > Why is money involved, though? Two factors over which we don't have a national consensus. One: the line between political and non-political speech is tough to draw. If I write a blog about the minimum wage, is that political? What if I do it full time? Now I hire a copy editor--is that political spending? What if the blog is openly--and intentionally--partisan? Two: a metric to determine the degree to which money is a factor in a given piece of speech. Say I paint a political mural on my house's public-facing wall. Is the paint political spending? What if I hire someone to paint it for me, but based on my design? What if my neighbor lets me paint her house? What if my other neighbor, to whom I give the oranges from my orange tree every year, lets me do the same? What if I commission the art but paint it myself?
    - vijaybritto 9y ago
      But there are well-functioning Democracies in Europe without any sort of lobbying right? Bringing in money automatically removes a ton of people right? The people needing reforms most are the poor and the money makes it impossible for them to have a voice!

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.
- sosborn 9y ago
  How is lobbying pay-to-play?
vijaybritto 9y ago
Yes, they should do their jobs without any extra nudging I suppose?
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > they should do their jobs without any extra nudging I suppose? Consider a U.S. Senator representing Arkansas considering a bill regulating nuclear energy. The Senator is no expert in nukes. How should he determine to whom to speak? If a renowned nuclear physicist in California wants to speak with the Senator, should that be banned? Lobbying, i.e. people--individually or in assembly--expressing their political views to elected leaders, is an inherent side effect of the First Amendment. (And, I'd argue, of democracy.)
  - wvenable 9y ago
    Why is money involved, though?
    - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
      > Why is money involved, though? Two factors over which we don't have a national consensus. One: the line between political and non-political speech is tough to draw. If I write a blog about the minimum wage, is that political? What if I do it full time? Now I hire a copy editor--is that political spending? What if the blog is openly--and intentionally--partisan? Two: a metric to determine the degree to which money is a factor in a given piece of speech. Say I paint a political mural on my house's public-facing wall. Is the paint political spending? What if I hire someone to paint it for me, but based on my design? What if my neighbor lets me paint her house? What if my other neighbor, to whom I give the oranges from my orange tree every year, lets me do the same? What if I commission the art but paint it myself?
  - vijaybritto 9y ago
    But there are well-functioning Democracies in Europe without any sort of lobbying right? Bringing in money automatically removes a ton of people right? The people needing reforms most are the poor and the money makes it impossible for them to have a voice!