7 ms·

This is so true. We should just ban lobbying because it is only used by rich corporations and individuals.

ekianjo 8y ago
Lobbying is just a legal form of corruption. Ban it, and it will still continue to exist underground anyway. What we need is to stop voting for idiot politicians.
- trhway 8y ago
  For that you need to stop produce idiot voters.
  - peterwwillis 8y ago
    Exactly. Garbage in, garbage out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpWrsEpWgrc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpWrsEpWgrc
  - hanniabu 8y ago
    Well to be fair, it's difficult to be an educated voter since the candidates are allowed to say whatever they want in the election period and aren't beholden to follow through with the terms they were elected for.
    - dwd 8y ago
      This... Electioneering should be treated the same as advertising and have the same penalties for making false or misleading statements.
- CyberDildonics 8y ago
  I guess we shouldn't have any laws at all then.
- staunch 8y ago
  What about creating a "Direct Democracy Lobbying Group" that lets citizens donate/vote online on issues and then (legally) bribes the appropriate people with total transparency? The depressing thing about most bribery is how small the amounts of money are. Politicians take bribes in the form of campaign financing because they want to stay in power. It's easy for them to rationalize if they think they're serving the greater good, and many of them would probably prefer to take money from citizens instead. It seems like one super rich person could fix every level of US politics by implementing a backdoor direct democracy and seeding it with matching donations. If crowdfunding has proven anything, it's that people have more than enough money to spend when they want something. It's only now that everyone is on the internet that this idea is even possible, and no one has tried it yet.
  - michaelmrose 8y ago
    The rich people and companies have more money than we have all we could do is slightly raise the stakes and still lose.
  - cam_l 8y ago
    We have a group sort of like that in Australia, Getup (not bribing but lobbying). The current sitting party is trying to get it deemed as a political party as it consistently lobbies against government policy (policy which is consistently against the will and interests of the public).
- vkou 8y ago
  And while we're at it, let's build the new Soviet man. The USSR only tried doing that for what, sixty years? Your politicians aren't idiots, they rationally respond to the incentives in the system. What's broken is the system.
- autoexec 8y ago
  As long as good politicians feel they'll be disadvantaged if they aren't selling themselves like the idiot ones are the good ones will line up for the money. Certainly it's better to outlaw it rather than to simply allow it to happen. You will never catch 100% of the people breaking the law, but you can create an environment of transparency and accountability to help and you can make it costly enough for those who are caught to make the next person reconsider risking it.
  - ekianjo 8y ago
    lobbying is illegal in many countries yet it does not make corruption dissappear, far from it. Its like the war on drugs: it makes cartels stronger, if anything.
ericb 8y ago
edited: Lobbying should be considered treasonous.
- dang 8y ago
  Please don't post unsubstantive comments.
  - ericb 8y ago
    Would "should be considered" be more appropriate wording and less hyperbolic? I'm being serious. I think cash contributions for legislation fundamentally subvert our democracy, and my comment was intended to raise that point for discussion. I don't see discussion of the perversion of democracy as unsubstantive.
    - fossuser 8y ago
      Not really, no - you need to expand on the why in order to have some sort of substantive discussion (especially when using politically loaded language). Lobbying in its positive form is about experts trying to explain things to representatives that don't understand the specifics of the field. When done right a representative should get perspective from different areas and be able to understand the issues/regulations that are being discussed from multiple parties that have their own different incentives. Your comment that's it's 'treasonous' absent any discussion doesn't really offer any explanation of how congressional representatives are supposed to be informed about any subject they don't already know about. People that do this work are going to be paid by the companies trying to explain things. Political contributions to campaigns are a different issue and I think do pose a corrupting influence, this talk does a good job explaining the issue: https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_...
      - ericb 8y ago
        I would argue that the advent of PAC's and Citizens United has more or less obsoleted the positive case--which you're right, I don't object too. What I mean is, if I'm a politician and two lobbyist show up "explaining" if I listen to the one from a PAC with the briefcase full of campaign contributions, in the next election I'm more likely to stay a politician, so there's now a selective pressure toward corruption on politicians. The same goes for promises of lucrative jobs (Ajit Pai). So lobbying in some senses is collapsing toward the lowest common denominator because the "positive form" players have their cards trumped.
ateesdalejr 8y ago
Do many technology companies (Facebook, Google, etc.) not use lobbying to fight for tech interests?
- smolder 8y ago
  So? And you think tech companies lobby for nobler reasons than others? Not the case.
a3n 8y ago
Any attempt to ban lobbying would be heavily lobbied against.
- TimTheTinker 8y ago
  Haha, yes - but so true. Lobbyism forms a power structure that effectively cuts off and circumvents the will of the people. So by definition, it's actually a form of tyranny.
  - a3n 8y ago
    Mike Mulvaney, former House Rep and Trump's destroyer of agencies, said out loud that when he was in Congress he said out loud that he wouldn't talk to anyone unless they made a donation to his campaign. He also said out loud that other members of Congress should do the same. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Mulvaney#Pay-to-play https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Mulvaney#Pay-to-play
jpindar 8y ago
Would you include the ACLU, EFF, etc. in your ban?
- Arubis 8y ago
  Yes; if lobbying were truly reduced/eliminated across the board, at least they'd have an even playing field. Loopholes will inevitably be used by those with the most money and power.
menacingly 8y ago
I've always looked at money's influence in politics as a sort of balanced system, like the house and senate. We need both equal access to politics and proportional access to politics based on resources. Otherwise, democracy devolves into two me's and a Jeff Bezos voting on who pays for my stuff.
- xg15 8y ago
  But now you have one you and 10000 Jeff Bezos' voting on how much tax Amazon should pay. Doesn't seem much better.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > We need both equal access to politics and proportional access to politics based on resources. Otherwise, democracy devolves into two me's and a Jeff Bezos voting on who pays for my stuff. I've actually considered that, because it's effectively the status quo, but then I conclude: Why should wealthy people have special proportional access? There are so many more groups who are so much more at risk: Small business? Orphans? Groups facing systemic discrimination (women, minorities, LGBTQ)? Homeless? Minority party members in solid red/blue districts? People with rare diseases? With unpopular political beliefs? OpenBSD users? Wealthy people already have so much power and so many advantages; they might be the absolute last group that needs special protection.
- genericid 8y ago
  > Otherwise, democracy devolves into two me's and a Jeff Bezos voting on who pays for my stuff. Democracy does not "devolve" into that, that is what democracy is.

Lobbying is just a legal form of corruption. Ban it, and it will still continue to exist underground anyway. What we need is to stop voting for idiot politicians.

trhway 8y ago
For that you need to stop produce idiot voters.
- peterwwillis 8y ago
  Exactly. Garbage in, garbage out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpWrsEpWgrc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpWrsEpWgrc
- hanniabu 8y ago
  Well to be fair, it's difficult to be an educated voter since the candidates are allowed to say whatever they want in the election period and aren't beholden to follow through with the terms they were elected for.
  - dwd 8y ago
    This... Electioneering should be treated the same as advertising and have the same penalties for making false or misleading statements.
CyberDildonics 8y ago
I guess we shouldn't have any laws at all then.
staunch 8y ago
What about creating a "Direct Democracy Lobbying Group" that lets citizens donate/vote online on issues and then (legally) bribes the appropriate people with total transparency? The depressing thing about most bribery is how small the amounts of money are. Politicians take bribes in the form of campaign financing because they want to stay in power. It's easy for them to rationalize if they think they're serving the greater good, and many of them would probably prefer to take money from citizens instead. It seems like one super rich person could fix every level of US politics by implementing a backdoor direct democracy and seeding it with matching donations. If crowdfunding has proven anything, it's that people have more than enough money to spend when they want something. It's only now that everyone is on the internet that this idea is even possible, and no one has tried it yet.
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  The rich people and companies have more money than we have all we could do is slightly raise the stakes and still lose.
- cam_l 8y ago
  We have a group sort of like that in Australia, Getup (not bribing but lobbying). The current sitting party is trying to get it deemed as a political party as it consistently lobbies against government policy (policy which is consistently against the will and interests of the public).
vkou 8y ago
And while we're at it, let's build the new Soviet man. The USSR only tried doing that for what, sixty years? Your politicians aren't idiots, they rationally respond to the incentives in the system. What's broken is the system.
autoexec 8y ago
As long as good politicians feel they'll be disadvantaged if they aren't selling themselves like the idiot ones are the good ones will line up for the money. Certainly it's better to outlaw it rather than to simply allow it to happen. You will never catch 100% of the people breaking the law, but you can create an environment of transparency and accountability to help and you can make it costly enough for those who are caught to make the next person reconsider risking it.
- ekianjo 8y ago
  lobbying is illegal in many countries yet it does not make corruption dissappear, far from it. Its like the war on drugs: it makes cartels stronger, if anything.

ericb 8y ago

edited: Lobbying should be considered treasonous.

dang 8y ago
Please don't post unsubstantive comments.
- ericb 8y ago
  Would "should be considered" be more appropriate wording and less hyperbolic? I'm being serious. I think cash contributions for legislation fundamentally subvert our democracy, and my comment was intended to raise that point for discussion. I don't see discussion of the perversion of democracy as unsubstantive.
  - fossuser 8y ago
    Not really, no - you need to expand on the why in order to have some sort of substantive discussion (especially when using politically loaded language). Lobbying in its positive form is about experts trying to explain things to representatives that don't understand the specifics of the field. When done right a representative should get perspective from different areas and be able to understand the issues/regulations that are being discussed from multiple parties that have their own different incentives. Your comment that's it's 'treasonous' absent any discussion doesn't really offer any explanation of how congressional representatives are supposed to be informed about any subject they don't already know about. People that do this work are going to be paid by the companies trying to explain things. Political contributions to campaigns are a different issue and I think do pose a corrupting influence, this talk does a good job explaining the issue: https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_...
    - ericb 8y ago
      I would argue that the advent of PAC's and Citizens United has more or less obsoleted the positive case--which you're right, I don't object too. What I mean is, if I'm a politician and two lobbyist show up "explaining" if I listen to the one from a PAC with the briefcase full of campaign contributions, in the next election I'm more likely to stay a politician, so there's now a selective pressure toward corruption on politicians. The same goes for promises of lucrative jobs (Ajit Pai). So lobbying in some senses is collapsing toward the lowest common denominator because the "positive form" players have their cards trumped.

ateesdalejr 8y ago

Do many technology companies (Facebook, Google, etc.) not use lobbying to fight for tech interests?

smolder 8y ago
So? And you think tech companies lobby for nobler reasons than others? Not the case.

a3n 8y ago

Any attempt to ban lobbying would be heavily lobbied against.

TimTheTinker 8y ago
Haha, yes - but so true. Lobbyism forms a power structure that effectively cuts off and circumvents the will of the people. So by definition, it's actually a form of tyranny.
- a3n 8y ago
  Mike Mulvaney, former House Rep and Trump's destroyer of agencies, said out loud that when he was in Congress he said out loud that he wouldn't talk to anyone unless they made a donation to his campaign. He also said out loud that other members of Congress should do the same. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Mulvaney#Pay-to-play https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Mulvaney#Pay-to-play

jpindar 8y ago

Would you include the ACLU, EFF, etc. in your ban?

Arubis 8y ago
Yes; if lobbying were truly reduced/eliminated across the board, at least they'd have an even playing field. Loopholes will inevitably be used by those with the most money and power.

menacingly 8y ago

I've always looked at money's influence in politics as a sort of balanced system, like the house and senate. We need both equal access to politics and proportional access to politics based on resources. Otherwise, democracy devolves into two me's and a Jeff Bezos voting on who pays for my stuff.

xg15 8y ago
But now you have one you and 10000 Jeff Bezos' voting on how much tax Amazon should pay. Doesn't seem much better.
forapurpose 8y ago
> We need both equal access to politics and proportional access to politics based on resources. Otherwise, democracy devolves into two me's and a Jeff Bezos voting on who pays for my stuff. I've actually considered that, because it's effectively the status quo, but then I conclude: Why should wealthy people have special proportional access? There are so many more groups who are so much more at risk: Small business? Orphans? Groups facing systemic discrimination (women, minorities, LGBTQ)? Homeless? Minority party members in solid red/blue districts? People with rare diseases? With unpopular political beliefs? OpenBSD users? Wealthy people already have so much power and so many advantages; they might be the absolute last group that needs special protection.
genericid 8y ago
> Otherwise, democracy devolves into two me's and a Jeff Bezos voting on who pays for my stuff. Democracy does not "devolve" into that, that is what democracy is.