3 ms·

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!
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - sosborn 9y ago
    It might not be called lobbying, but I assure you equivalents exist. The thing is that most people think that lobbying = bribery. It simply isn’t true. The process can be corrupted, but that is true regardless of the vehicle.

> 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!
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- sosborn 9y ago
  It might not be called lobbying, but I assure you equivalents exist. The thing is that most people think that lobbying = bribery. It simply isn’t true. The process can be corrupted, but that is true regardless of the vehicle.