5 ms·

- If you've received campaign contributions from the corporation said lobbyist works for, I think it's apparent to everyone how, (you scratch my back...). - Yo

- If you've received campaign contributions from the corporation said lobbyist works for, I think it's apparent to everyone how, (you scratch my back...). - You're giving a citizen which may not even live in your constituency and works for a corporation the kind of access to yourself that you'd never grant a regular constituent. - Over the decades, an understanding has been built of 'the revolving door', how former government workers switch to the private sector and then come back as lobbyists, utilizing their contacts and friendships to get what their employer wants. Or they come back into government with a massive exit package, while still being loyal to their former employer and vote for wars etc, when then conveniently their 'former' employer can send equipment for etc. Then they switch to the private sector again, collecting millions annually for a position that has no real responsibility. The notion that there's corruption only when filmed passing banknotes is absurd, there's a reason the notion of intention exists in criminal law.

wil421 8y ago
Let’s say some environmental committee is headed by a Representative from New York. An Environmentalist organization from California wants new legislation to improve air quality across the US. Let’s assume no representatives from California are on the committee. Does this mean it’s not right for the California organization to lobby the New York rep? I highly doubt every issue a house rep deals with is about their own constituents.
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  There's a difference between an organization representing the public interest, (air quality), and some for-profit megacorp looking to maximize profits, often at the expense of public interest. Pretending there isn't is just dumb. Also, unless they gave him campaign cash, I doubt they'd even be able to get the same kind of a hearing a corporate donor would, but my solution to this is to not allow any campaign contributions at all and to have public financing of elections, so that there's a greater chance politicians will actually represent what the people want.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    No, it's dumb to pretend that only "public interest" organizations want things that are good for the public, while megacorps do not. Our immense prosperity is due to megacorps, not public interest organizations. Indeed, public interest organizations often want to do things that harm the economy, and thus the people. E.g. NIMBY organizations, historical preservation societies, etc. Also, "corporate donor" is not a thing that exists. Corporations are legally banned from contributing to candidates.
    - AsyncAwait 8y ago
      Nowhere did I say that all public interest organizations are positive. Just that in the specific example of OP of air quality they are vs a corp would most likely want to pollute if anything. Not understanding that is indeed rather dumb. > Our immense prosperity is due to megacorps, not public interest organizations. "Nearly 80 percent of American workers (78 percent) say they're living paycheck to paycheck". I think those people would disagree with you. P.S. Why do you think there's lack of will among politicians to implement single payer, despite it being majority popular and implemented by practically every developed and developing country in some form? Why is there no sick leave, maternity/paternity leave in America by law? Could it be that corporate players don't want these things? Hmm...
      - rayiner 8y ago
        > Nowhere did I say that all public interest organizations are positive. Just that in the specific example of OP of air quality they are vs a corp would most likely want to pollute if anything. Yes, and in a lot of cases, pollution serves the public interest more than whatever the public interest organization wants. Making cell phones and microchips is an enormously polluting process, for example. > "Nearly 80 percent of American workers (78 percent) say they're living paycheck to paycheck". And prior to the raise of mega-corps, Americans were living harvest-to-harvest. In countries without mega-corps (I come from one), people are subsistence farmers, living at the knife edge of starvation at every moment. > P.S. Why do you think there's lack of will among politicians to implement single payer, despite it being majority popular and implemented by practically every developed and developing country in some form? > Could it be that corporate players don't want these things? Hmm... They have mega-corps in other developed countries too, so no, I don't think that's the reason. I suspect the answer is that the public mood has only shifted in favor of single payer in the last 10 years: https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer-national-health-plans-and-expanding-access-to-medicare-coverage https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer.... And of course, that: (1) is for the public as a whole, not actual voters who are more conservative on average than the general populace; and (2) does not account for the fact that voters in smaller states, which lean more conservative, have more representation in Congress. You can see these effects from Slide 4. 62% of Republicans polled strongly oppose a national health plan today. Pretty much the entire time that public opinion overall has favored single payer (since 2010), there has been a republican majority in the house. The last time there was a Democrat majority in both chambers (2008-2009), we got the ACA. At that time, a majority of Americans opposed single payer. Public opinion (adjusted to account for the fact that polls do not directly map onto votes in the House and Senate), directly explains why we don't have single payer.
rayiner 8y ago
You can’t receive campaign contributions from the corporation the lobbyist works for—it’s illegal for corporations to contribute to a campaign. You’re giving a citizen who knows about a complex industry access that regular citizens also routinely get. This idea of a “revolving door” is so vague that it’s impossible to critique. How many politicians leave office to go work for industries that lobbied them? The fact is that it’s not many.
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  > You can’t receive campaign contributions from the corporation the lobbyist works for—it’s illegal for corporations to contribute to a campaign. Oh come on, but PACs can. You're insulting anyone's intelligence you tell what you wrote above to. > You’re giving a citizen who knows about a complex industry access that regular citizens also routinely get. From what I've seen no. Can a regular person call a senator anytime and for him personally to take the phone? Don't think so. Also, the idea that lobbyists 'know' about a complex industry. No, they simply tell you what they want you to 'know' about the industry in order to win your favor/sympathy. It has little to do with how much they know. There are politicians who turned lobbyists within a year or so of being out of government. Do you really think they're senior folks in the industries they represent? > How many politicians leave office to go work for industries that lobbied them? Quite a few and in the case of people like Dick Cheney, it can be deadly for hundreds of thousands of people. Random Google search[1]. 1 - https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/top.php?display=Z https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/top.php?display=Z P.S. I mean this as kindly as possible, but are you, or do you aspire to be a lobbyist by any chance? You sound like one.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    > Oh come on, but PACs can. You're insulting anyone's intelligence you tell what you wrote above to. But corporations cannot contribute to PACs. And PACs can only contribute $5,000 per candidate and $15,000 per party. > Can a regular person call a senator anytime and for him personally to take the phone? Don't think so. Also, the idea that lobbyists 'know' about a complex industry. No, they simply tell you what they want you to 'know' about the industry in order to win your favor/sympathy. It has little to do with how much they know. There are politicians who turned lobbyists within a year or so of being out of government. Do you really think they're senior folks in the industries they represent? Do you have any actual basis for the assertions in this paragraph? Or is it based on how you think lobbying works? Because this is a straw man. > P.S. I mean this as kindly as possible, but are you, or do you aspire to be a lobbyist by any chance? You sound like one. My wife was a lobbyist, and I have some insight into how lobbying actually works (as opposed to fictional assumptions). The fact that people keep repeating FUD like lobbying involves making campaign contributions is evidence that people are attacking a straw man, not the actual business of lobbying.

wil421 8y ago

Let’s say some environmental committee is headed by a Representative from New York. An Environmentalist organization from California wants new legislation to improve air quality across the US. Let’s assume no representatives from California are on the committee. Does this mean it’s not right for the California organization to lobby the New York rep? I highly doubt every issue a house rep deals with is about their own constituents.

AsyncAwait 8y ago
There's a difference between an organization representing the public interest, (air quality), and some for-profit megacorp looking to maximize profits, often at the expense of public interest. Pretending there isn't is just dumb. Also, unless they gave him campaign cash, I doubt they'd even be able to get the same kind of a hearing a corporate donor would, but my solution to this is to not allow any campaign contributions at all and to have public financing of elections, so that there's a greater chance politicians will actually represent what the people want.
- rayiner 8y ago
  No, it's dumb to pretend that only "public interest" organizations want things that are good for the public, while megacorps do not. Our immense prosperity is due to megacorps, not public interest organizations. Indeed, public interest organizations often want to do things that harm the economy, and thus the people. E.g. NIMBY organizations, historical preservation societies, etc. Also, "corporate donor" is not a thing that exists. Corporations are legally banned from contributing to candidates.
  - AsyncAwait 8y ago
    Nowhere did I say that all public interest organizations are positive. Just that in the specific example of OP of air quality they are vs a corp would most likely want to pollute if anything. Not understanding that is indeed rather dumb. > Our immense prosperity is due to megacorps, not public interest organizations. "Nearly 80 percent of American workers (78 percent) say they're living paycheck to paycheck". I think those people would disagree with you. P.S. Why do you think there's lack of will among politicians to implement single payer, despite it being majority popular and implemented by practically every developed and developing country in some form? Why is there no sick leave, maternity/paternity leave in America by law? Could it be that corporate players don't want these things? Hmm...
    - rayiner 8y ago
      > Nowhere did I say that all public interest organizations are positive. Just that in the specific example of OP of air quality they are vs a corp would most likely want to pollute if anything. Yes, and in a lot of cases, pollution serves the public interest more than whatever the public interest organization wants. Making cell phones and microchips is an enormously polluting process, for example. > "Nearly 80 percent of American workers (78 percent) say they're living paycheck to paycheck". And prior to the raise of mega-corps, Americans were living harvest-to-harvest. In countries without mega-corps (I come from one), people are subsistence farmers, living at the knife edge of starvation at every moment. > P.S. Why do you think there's lack of will among politicians to implement single payer, despite it being majority popular and implemented by practically every developed and developing country in some form? > Could it be that corporate players don't want these things? Hmm... They have mega-corps in other developed countries too, so no, I don't think that's the reason. I suspect the answer is that the public mood has only shifted in favor of single payer in the last 10 years: https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer-national-health-plans-and-expanding-access-to-medicare-coverage https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer.... And of course, that: (1) is for the public as a whole, not actual voters who are more conservative on average than the general populace; and (2) does not account for the fact that voters in smaller states, which lean more conservative, have more representation in Congress. You can see these effects from Slide 4. 62% of Republicans polled strongly oppose a national health plan today. Pretty much the entire time that public opinion overall has favored single payer (since 2010), there has been a republican majority in the house. The last time there was a Democrat majority in both chambers (2008-2009), we got the ACA. At that time, a majority of Americans opposed single payer. Public opinion (adjusted to account for the fact that polls do not directly map onto votes in the House and Senate), directly explains why we don't have single payer.

rayiner 8y ago

You can’t receive campaign contributions from the corporation the lobbyist works for—it’s illegal for corporations to contribute to a campaign. You’re giving a citizen who knows about a complex industry access that regular citizens also routinely get. This idea of a “revolving door” is so vague that it’s impossible to critique. How many politicians leave office to go work for industries that lobbied them? The fact is that it’s not many.

AsyncAwait 8y ago
> You can’t receive campaign contributions from the corporation the lobbyist works for—it’s illegal for corporations to contribute to a campaign. Oh come on, but PACs can. You're insulting anyone's intelligence you tell what you wrote above to. > You’re giving a citizen who knows about a complex industry access that regular citizens also routinely get. From what I've seen no. Can a regular person call a senator anytime and for him personally to take the phone? Don't think so. Also, the idea that lobbyists 'know' about a complex industry. No, they simply tell you what they want you to 'know' about the industry in order to win your favor/sympathy. It has little to do with how much they know. There are politicians who turned lobbyists within a year or so of being out of government. Do you really think they're senior folks in the industries they represent? > How many politicians leave office to go work for industries that lobbied them? Quite a few and in the case of people like Dick Cheney, it can be deadly for hundreds of thousands of people. Random Google search[1]. 1 - https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/top.php?display=Z https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/top.php?display=Z P.S. I mean this as kindly as possible, but are you, or do you aspire to be a lobbyist by any chance? You sound like one.
- rayiner 8y ago
  > Oh come on, but PACs can. You're insulting anyone's intelligence you tell what you wrote above to. But corporations cannot contribute to PACs. And PACs can only contribute $5,000 per candidate and $15,000 per party. > Can a regular person call a senator anytime and for him personally to take the phone? Don't think so. Also, the idea that lobbyists 'know' about a complex industry. No, they simply tell you what they want you to 'know' about the industry in order to win your favor/sympathy. It has little to do with how much they know. There are politicians who turned lobbyists within a year or so of being out of government. Do you really think they're senior folks in the industries they represent? Do you have any actual basis for the assertions in this paragraph? Or is it based on how you think lobbying works? Because this is a straw man. > P.S. I mean this as kindly as possible, but are you, or do you aspire to be a lobbyist by any chance? You sound like one. My wife was a lobbyist, and I have some insight into how lobbying actually works (as opposed to fictional assumptions). The fact that people keep repeating FUD like lobbying involves making campaign contributions is evidence that people are attacking a straw man, not the actual business of lobbying.