6 ms·

Lobbying isn't inherently bad, you know. Congress needs experts for information.

by dgzl 8y ago

Y_Y 8y ago
Plagues aren't inherently bad, you know. Christendom needs God's wrath to learn its sinfulness.
- ryacko 8y ago
  What are you, a crazy millenarian? Wouldn't God want Christendom to repent?
endymi0n 8y ago
If you hire someone and pay them lots of money for their expertise, that's the definition of an expert. If you consult someone for their expertise and they pay you (or your party/campaign) lots of money, that's the definition of a lobbyist. I'm still at loss how that form of corruption is not just legal but apparently completely accepted in the US.
- andrewla 8y ago
  You have an incorrect view of what a lobbyist is and does. A lobbyist (or a lobbying organization or PAC) cannot give more to an official or campaign or party than any other private citizen; $5,000 per election. Lobbyists are primarily responsible for exactly what the GP said -- trying to bring expert information to non-expert elected officials. PACs and other organizations that do lobbying can spend money on an independent campaign (Citizen's United), but they can't give it to the candidate. Way more insidious than campaign contributions is the "revolving door" where former elected officials are hired as lobbyists or consultants as a deferred award for their support during their tenure.
  - xtian 8y ago
    There's a difference between someone representing an interest group and an expert and the difference is right there in the word "interest".
  - koops 8y ago
    Lobbyists are not trying to bring expert information to elected officials. They are trying to influence public policy to the benefit of the people or organizations paying them.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      Indeed, leveraging an information asymmetry between their employers and the officials they are lobbying is a key technique here.
    - barry-cotter 8y ago
      There’s no necessary contradiction between those two things. More importantly lobbyists are indispensable because Congressfolk have tiny, tiny staff budgets so it’s not like they have their own internal researchers or even their own legal team. People forming the United States have unpaid interns because they can’t afford better.
      - markdown 8y ago
        Then they should be paid whatever is necessary to make lobbyists unnecessary. I suspect though that that would change nothing, because these "expert" lobbyists you support don't really want lawmakers to have full knowledge of whatever is important to them; their goal is to feed lawmakers the information they need to entice them to support the lobbyists agenda.
      - jacobolus 8y ago
        Congress has tiny staff budgets partly because one of the parties outsources all of its policy analysis and legislation writing to lobbyists, all of its public outreach/education to corrupt “think tanks” and corporate-owned media outlets, and intentionally eviscerated their own budget because in the past their own independent expert analysis often contradicted industry preferences, which was inconvenient for the corporations calling the shots.
        briandear 8y ago
        One of the parties? You haven’t been around DC much I’m assuming.
  - Nadya 8y ago
    Since you seem informed on the matter, how much can a lobbyist give to a politician's charity foundation? For example, can they give more than $5,000 to the Clinton Foundation or the (now dissolving) Donald J. Trump Foundation? I've always been very skeptical of the fact that high ranking and influential politicians (eg: ones that a lobbyist would want to influence) always seem to have a "non-profit" charity foundation, while low ranking politicians (ones who aren't high enough on the totem pole to be worth influencing) infrequently or rarely have non-profit charity foundations. It's always about loopholes and indirect payments.
  - sandworm101 8y ago
    >> ..cannot give more to an official or campaign or party than any other private citizen; $5,000 per election. Are you typing from the past? The 5k rule means nothing in today's world of dark money. A lobbyist can give unlimited amounts to third parties, organizations that will either support a campaign or not. Or they can just spend the money themselves. A billionaire may only be allowed to hand over 5k in cash, but they can spend millions on people to attack you online. So you listen to those lobbyists with the deepest pockets because they pose your greatest threat.
  - mamon 8y ago
    There are more subtle ways of transferring money from lobbyist to political party than just cash payments. Let's say that the lobbyist sponsor company promises to use a hotel chain owned by a party member for its bussines trips, or buy office supplies from a company owned by other member of the same party, or something similar. You can buy their support for your cause this way.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Lobbying isn't inherently bad, you know. True, but... > Congress needs experts for information. That's what members and committees have staff for (and, in a broader sense, what the US government has an executive branch which Congress sets the rules governing and required to report to them for.) Lobbyists don't work for Congress in the public interest, they work for actors that want Congress to serve those actors' private interests.
- barry-cotter 8y ago
  Members and committees have comically small and under resources staff for their responsibilities. Lobbyists are partly a response to that. People who care about an issue pay for research into it and publicise it to all and sundry, congress included.
ceejayoz 8y ago
> Congress needs experts for information. Congress should hire some, then. "I'm an expert, and I would like to give you some advice... for free, plus I'll give your campaign money!" should be suspicious.
- jjeaff 8y ago
  What lobbyists are allowed to give congress people is very limited. In most cases, food and non-alcoholic beverages is all.
  - alistairSH 8y ago
    Directly, sure. Indirectly? In the post-Citizens United world, it's literally unbounded. Not to mention a lobbyist is free to: 1. Organize a fund-raises for the politicians campaign. They can't pay $100k directly, but they can sell 100 seats for $1000 each. 2. With a wink and hand=-shake, pffer the politician a job in the future.
    - manfredo 8y ago
      Citizens United vs FEC is unrelated to what you are talking about. The court decision did not make contributions to politicians unbounded. The set ceiling is still in place. It did unbound the amount of money someone can spend on political speech that is not affiliated with a politician's campaign. You can donate only a set amount of money to a candidate that wants to breed purple lemons. You (or a separate group you donate to) can spend an unlimited amount of amount of money to advertise in favor of breeding purple lemons. What you seem to be describing - disguising a donation from one individual to a politician that is over the contribution limit as several donations from different many different people - was and still is illegal.
      - alistairSH 8y ago
        Thus my "indirectly" modifier. A lobbyist cannot give $10,000 to the politician directly. They can give $10,000 to a PAC that is closed related to the politician. The fund-raiser would also be legal. There is no masking of donations - those attending the fund-raiser do pay for their tickets. Nothing prevents a lobbyist from doing the legwork to make the fund-raiser happen. Main point being, despite legal limits on direct donations, there are many ways a lobbyist can facilitate the flow of money from special interests into the pockets of politicians.
dillondoyle 8y ago
I agree but think that there is a distinction that taints the definition of 'lobbying.' For instance, I think think of lobbying broadly as the 'gears' of democracy, from one individual sending an email about an issue to an organized entity using their collective powers for change. However, I think the distinction is most people think of lobbying as a special sort of 'relationship capitalization' that happens on the Hill; I'm not hiring Group X because they can best funnel my grassroots to the grasstops (though that exists) but rather I hire Group X because my account manager used to work at Dirksen and is friends with current target COS. This selling of connections, relationships, etc is what I think understandably makes people wary of lobbying.
akira2501 8y ago
> Lobbying isn't inherently bad, you know. With the current set of laws in the US, it pretty much is. Also, congress needs Janitors.. but we don't excoriate ourselves over the impossibility of getting that work done, we just hire and pay a janitor for their work. With the DNC and RNC raking in so much money every year, I find it amazingly hard to believe that they're lacking for expert advice.
- jjeaff 8y ago
  It's not because they lack expert advice, it's because some issues brought up by the populace are complicated. If you want to pass a law that will help reduce child obesity, it might not be enough to simply contact your congressperson directly. So you hire a lobbyist who has a closer relationship with the congress person to brush up on the topic and convince them why passing this particular law is a good idea. I think you will find that just as many good laws were the result of a lobbyist, either paid or unpaid, as are the bad laws.
  - akira2501 8y ago
    > So you hire a lobbyist who has a closer relationship with the congress person Off the cuff, I am of the opinion that this is the root of the problem. We live in 2019, not 1819.. it's simply _not_ that hard for a congressperson to be "in touch" with their constituency. > and convince them why passing this particular law is a good idea. I don't want them _convinced_ I want them to be _informed_. There's a huge difference. > I think you will find that just as many good laws were the result of a lobbyist Yea, it _can_ work.. but we _should_ we rely on that? I would say given the high-mindedness of those who founded this country and the set of laws the left us, the answer should be a resounding "No."
asdjasldkjkljd 8y ago
There's a reason they're called lobbyists and not experts.

Lobbying isn't inherently bad, you know. Congress needs experts for information.

by dgzl 8y ago

Lobbying isn't inherently bad, you know. Congress needs experts for information.

Y_Y 8y ago

Plagues aren't inherently bad, you know. Christendom needs God's wrath to learn its sinfulness.

ryacko 8y ago
What are you, a crazy millenarian? Wouldn't God want Christendom to repent?

endymi0n 8y ago

If you hire someone and pay them lots of money for their expertise, that's the definition of an expert. If you consult someone for their expertise and they pay you (or your party/campaign) lots of money, that's the definition of a lobbyist. I'm still at loss how that form of corruption is not just legal but apparently completely accepted in the US.

andrewla 8y ago
You have an incorrect view of what a lobbyist is and does. A lobbyist (or a lobbying organization or PAC) cannot give more to an official or campaign or party than any other private citizen; $5,000 per election. Lobbyists are primarily responsible for exactly what the GP said -- trying to bring expert information to non-expert elected officials. PACs and other organizations that do lobbying can spend money on an independent campaign (Citizen's United), but they can't give it to the candidate. Way more insidious than campaign contributions is the "revolving door" where former elected officials are hired as lobbyists or consultants as a deferred award for their support during their tenure.
- xtian 8y ago
  There's a difference between someone representing an interest group and an expert and the difference is right there in the word "interest".
- koops 8y ago
  Lobbyists are not trying to bring expert information to elected officials. They are trying to influence public policy to the benefit of the people or organizations paying them.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    Indeed, leveraging an information asymmetry between their employers and the officials they are lobbying is a key technique here.
  - barry-cotter 8y ago
    There’s no necessary contradiction between those two things. More importantly lobbyists are indispensable because Congressfolk have tiny, tiny staff budgets so it’s not like they have their own internal researchers or even their own legal team. People forming the United States have unpaid interns because they can’t afford better.
    - markdown 8y ago
      Then they should be paid whatever is necessary to make lobbyists unnecessary. I suspect though that that would change nothing, because these "expert" lobbyists you support don't really want lawmakers to have full knowledge of whatever is important to them; their goal is to feed lawmakers the information they need to entice them to support the lobbyists agenda.
    - jacobolus 8y ago
      Congress has tiny staff budgets partly because one of the parties outsources all of its policy analysis and legislation writing to lobbyists, all of its public outreach/education to corrupt “think tanks” and corporate-owned media outlets, and intentionally eviscerated their own budget because in the past their own independent expert analysis often contradicted industry preferences, which was inconvenient for the corporations calling the shots.
      - briandear 8y ago
        One of the parties? You haven’t been around DC much I’m assuming.
- Nadya 8y ago
  Since you seem informed on the matter, how much can a lobbyist give to a politician's charity foundation? For example, can they give more than $5,000 to the Clinton Foundation or the (now dissolving) Donald J. Trump Foundation? I've always been very skeptical of the fact that high ranking and influential politicians (eg: ones that a lobbyist would want to influence) always seem to have a "non-profit" charity foundation, while low ranking politicians (ones who aren't high enough on the totem pole to be worth influencing) infrequently or rarely have non-profit charity foundations. It's always about loopholes and indirect payments.
- sandworm101 8y ago
  >> ..cannot give more to an official or campaign or party than any other private citizen; $5,000 per election. Are you typing from the past? The 5k rule means nothing in today's world of dark money. A lobbyist can give unlimited amounts to third parties, organizations that will either support a campaign or not. Or they can just spend the money themselves. A billionaire may only be allowed to hand over 5k in cash, but they can spend millions on people to attack you online. So you listen to those lobbyists with the deepest pockets because they pose your greatest threat.
- mamon 8y ago
  There are more subtle ways of transferring money from lobbyist to political party than just cash payments. Let's say that the lobbyist sponsor company promises to use a hotel chain owned by a party member for its bussines trips, or buy office supplies from a company owned by other member of the same party, or something similar. You can buy their support for your cause this way.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Lobbying isn't inherently bad, you know. True, but... > Congress needs experts for information. That's what members and committees have staff for (and, in a broader sense, what the US government has an executive branch which Congress sets the rules governing and required to report to them for.) Lobbyists don't work for Congress in the public interest, they work for actors that want Congress to serve those actors' private interests.

barry-cotter 8y ago
Members and committees have comically small and under resources staff for their responsibilities. Lobbyists are partly a response to that. People who care about an issue pay for research into it and publicise it to all and sundry, congress included.

ceejayoz 8y ago

> Congress needs experts for information. Congress should hire some, then. "I'm an expert, and I would like to give you some advice... for free, plus I'll give your campaign money!" should be suspicious.

jjeaff 8y ago
What lobbyists are allowed to give congress people is very limited. In most cases, food and non-alcoholic beverages is all.
- alistairSH 8y ago
  Directly, sure. Indirectly? In the post-Citizens United world, it's literally unbounded. Not to mention a lobbyist is free to: 1. Organize a fund-raises for the politicians campaign. They can't pay $100k directly, but they can sell 100 seats for $1000 each. 2. With a wink and hand=-shake, pffer the politician a job in the future.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    Citizens United vs FEC is unrelated to what you are talking about. The court decision did not make contributions to politicians unbounded. The set ceiling is still in place. It did unbound the amount of money someone can spend on political speech that is not affiliated with a politician's campaign. You can donate only a set amount of money to a candidate that wants to breed purple lemons. You (or a separate group you donate to) can spend an unlimited amount of amount of money to advertise in favor of breeding purple lemons. What you seem to be describing - disguising a donation from one individual to a politician that is over the contribution limit as several donations from different many different people - was and still is illegal.
    - alistairSH 8y ago
      Thus my "indirectly" modifier. A lobbyist cannot give $10,000 to the politician directly. They can give $10,000 to a PAC that is closed related to the politician. The fund-raiser would also be legal. There is no masking of donations - those attending the fund-raiser do pay for their tickets. Nothing prevents a lobbyist from doing the legwork to make the fund-raiser happen. Main point being, despite legal limits on direct donations, there are many ways a lobbyist can facilitate the flow of money from special interests into the pockets of politicians.

dillondoyle 8y ago

I agree but think that there is a distinction that taints the definition of 'lobbying.' For instance, I think think of lobbying broadly as the 'gears' of democracy, from one individual sending an email about an issue to an organized entity using their collective powers for change. However, I think the distinction is most people think of lobbying as a special sort of 'relationship capitalization' that happens on the Hill; I'm not hiring Group X because they can best funnel my grassroots to the grasstops (though that exists) but rather I hire Group X because my account manager used to work at Dirksen and is friends with current target COS. This selling of connections, relationships, etc is what I think understandably makes people wary of lobbying.

akira2501 8y ago

> Lobbying isn't inherently bad, you know. With the current set of laws in the US, it pretty much is. Also, congress needs Janitors.. but we don't excoriate ourselves over the impossibility of getting that work done, we just hire and pay a janitor for their work. With the DNC and RNC raking in so much money every year, I find it amazingly hard to believe that they're lacking for expert advice.

jjeaff 8y ago
It's not because they lack expert advice, it's because some issues brought up by the populace are complicated. If you want to pass a law that will help reduce child obesity, it might not be enough to simply contact your congressperson directly. So you hire a lobbyist who has a closer relationship with the congress person to brush up on the topic and convince them why passing this particular law is a good idea. I think you will find that just as many good laws were the result of a lobbyist, either paid or unpaid, as are the bad laws.
- akira2501 8y ago
  > So you hire a lobbyist who has a closer relationship with the congress person Off the cuff, I am of the opinion that this is the root of the problem. We live in 2019, not 1819.. it's simply _not_ that hard for a congressperson to be "in touch" with their constituency. > and convince them why passing this particular law is a good idea. I don't want them _convinced_ I want them to be _informed_. There's a huge difference. > I think you will find that just as many good laws were the result of a lobbyist Yea, it _can_ work.. but we _should_ we rely on that? I would say given the high-mindedness of those who founded this country and the set of laws the left us, the answer should be a resounding "No."

asdjasldkjkljd 8y ago

There's a reason they're called lobbyists and not experts.