6 ms·

Color me naive, but I'm always confused why those troubled by the lobbying criticize the influencers instead of the influenced. The influenced aren't some innoc

Color me naive, but I'm always confused why those troubled by the lobbying criticize the influencers instead of the influenced. The influenced aren't some innocent party here. Surely it is more reasonable to act in the best interest of your company as a lobbyist than it is to act against your constituents as a politician. Where is the scathing letter directed towards the writers/signatories/supporters of the bill in question? The reason you see this one is simple PR as a city lobbies for their way at the state level just as Lyft lobbies and they know anti-big-company is an effective tactic. If the city of Portland has a problem with the state of Oregon, then that's where the politicians need to hash out their issues. > Specifically, the bill Lyft has proposed and is attempting to pass [...] Lulz...what kind of terrible spin is that. I would be ashamed if I voted for this guy. Lyft doesn't pass laws.

eganist 8y ago
> I'm always confused why those troubled by the lobbying criticize the influencers instead of the influenced. Bribery tends to be a crime because we haven't found a way to short circuit en masse the human tendency to submit to influence. > Lulz...what kind of terrible spin is that. I would be ashamed if I voted for this guy. Lyft doesn't pass laws. Considering your comment, I shouldn't be surprised that you would be dismissive of the idea that directing influence means exerting greater control over the legislative process; it's only the technicalities (i.e. Lyft is not a legislator) that differ. The statement holds, and I think many of us would appreciate a more dignified rebuttal to the article's point rather than "lulz."
- darawk 8y ago
  > Bribery tends to be a crime because we haven't found a way to short circuit en masse the human tendency to submit to influence Contrary to popular belief, lobbying and bribery are in fact not the same thing.
  - pbreit 8y ago
    What's the difference?
    - darawk 8y ago
      Seriously? Lobbyists are paid to talk to politicians. They represent interest groups, and make their case in DC and other places. They do make campaign contributions, but that does not represent anywhere near the same level of influence as an actual person to person, quid pro quo bribe. There are actual places in the world where bribery is rampant, and if you lived in one of those places, you really wouldn't need to ask this question.
      - baddox 8y ago
        > They do make campaign contributions, but that does not represent anywhere near the same level of influence as an actual person to person, quid pro quo bribe. I bet it would have the same level of influence for people whose primary goal is to gain political power, and I bet those people (not by coincidence) tend to be the ones who become politicians.
      - vkou 8y ago
        When I see a politician selling their constituents up the river to a special interest group that also happens to fund his re-election (or threaten funding of his opponents), I don't actually feel much different then if it were a regular quid pro quo corruption arrangement. It happens all the fucking time. In fact, that they aren't breaking any laws when doing so makes me feel more incensed about it.
        rayiner 8y ago
        Special interest groups generally can’t “fund his re-election” because it’s illegal for corporations to donate to candidates. It might be worth considering whether your belief that “it happens all the fucking time” is based on facts or some sort of inchoate narrative you’ve picked up over the years.
        8y ago
- kodablah 8y ago
  > Bribery tends to be a crime because we haven't found a way to short circuit en masse the human tendency to submit to influence. I specifically mentioned that they aren't innocent parties for this reason. Turns out accepting bribes (if that's what we're calling it) in public office is also a crime yet the focus here is on one side. Why? > it's only the technicalities (i.e. Lyft is not a legislator) that differ Yes, that's spin and it's a form of deflecting from the real issue which is that the state and city disagree (on the bill, on one side succumbing to lobbying, etc). The statement does not hold, specifically and as a whole; it needs to be made at who is really "attempting to pass" the bill. Who exerts the greatest control and why is the letter not aimed there? The question can only be asked so many ways, but sadly all this deflecting about bribery, technicalities, quality of rebuttal, etc here and by politicians prevent real answers that should be asked of the real lawmakers.
ppseafield 8y ago
> Lyft doesn't pass laws. That's really just a semantic argument. When someone proposes a bill to a governing body, it's implied that they are trying to get it passed, even if they aren't congressfolks and don't have a vote. If not, why would they propose it? Certainly convincing legislators that a bill is a good idea is part of getting a bill passed, whether or not you are a congressperson, right? Maybe the sentence isn't exactly, technically correct, but it's not far off from reality. > Where is the scathing letter directed towards the writers/signatories/supporters of the bill in question? The letter to me reads like an expression of deep disappointment. Previously Lyft worked particularly well in concert with the city government, and Wheeler heaps praise on these past efforts. But now they're going behind the city's back and going to the state government. Maybe they are just participating in a "reasonable" business practice, but it is in stark contrast to their behavior in the past.
- kodablah 8y ago
  > The letter to me reads like an expression of deep disappointment While it may read as such, the fact that it's public and promoted says more than the content.
anth_anm 8y ago
> Surely it is more reasonable to act in the best interest of your company as a lobbyist than it is to act against your constituents as a politician No. Both parties of a bride are equally guilty.

eganist 8y ago

> I'm always confused why those troubled by the lobbying criticize the influencers instead of the influenced. Bribery tends to be a crime because we haven't found a way to short circuit en masse the human tendency to submit to influence. > Lulz...what kind of terrible spin is that. I would be ashamed if I voted for this guy. Lyft doesn't pass laws. Considering your comment, I shouldn't be surprised that you would be dismissive of the idea that directing influence means exerting greater control over the legislative process; it's only the technicalities (i.e. Lyft is not a legislator) that differ. The statement holds, and I think many of us would appreciate a more dignified rebuttal to the article's point rather than "lulz."

darawk 8y ago
> Bribery tends to be a crime because we haven't found a way to short circuit en masse the human tendency to submit to influence Contrary to popular belief, lobbying and bribery are in fact not the same thing.
- pbreit 8y ago
  What's the difference?
  - darawk 8y ago
    Seriously? Lobbyists are paid to talk to politicians. They represent interest groups, and make their case in DC and other places. They do make campaign contributions, but that does not represent anywhere near the same level of influence as an actual person to person, quid pro quo bribe. There are actual places in the world where bribery is rampant, and if you lived in one of those places, you really wouldn't need to ask this question.
    - baddox 8y ago
      > They do make campaign contributions, but that does not represent anywhere near the same level of influence as an actual person to person, quid pro quo bribe. I bet it would have the same level of influence for people whose primary goal is to gain political power, and I bet those people (not by coincidence) tend to be the ones who become politicians.
    - vkou 8y ago
      When I see a politician selling their constituents up the river to a special interest group that also happens to fund his re-election (or threaten funding of his opponents), I don't actually feel much different then if it were a regular quid pro quo corruption arrangement. It happens all the fucking time. In fact, that they aren't breaking any laws when doing so makes me feel more incensed about it.
      - rayiner 8y ago
        Special interest groups generally can’t “fund his re-election” because it’s illegal for corporations to donate to candidates. It might be worth considering whether your belief that “it happens all the fucking time” is based on facts or some sort of inchoate narrative you’ve picked up over the years.
        8y ago
kodablah 8y ago
> Bribery tends to be a crime because we haven't found a way to short circuit en masse the human tendency to submit to influence. I specifically mentioned that they aren't innocent parties for this reason. Turns out accepting bribes (if that's what we're calling it) in public office is also a crime yet the focus here is on one side. Why? > it's only the technicalities (i.e. Lyft is not a legislator) that differ Yes, that's spin and it's a form of deflecting from the real issue which is that the state and city disagree (on the bill, on one side succumbing to lobbying, etc). The statement does not hold, specifically and as a whole; it needs to be made at who is really "attempting to pass" the bill. Who exerts the greatest control and why is the letter not aimed there? The question can only be asked so many ways, but sadly all this deflecting about bribery, technicalities, quality of rebuttal, etc here and by politicians prevent real answers that should be asked of the real lawmakers.

ppseafield 8y ago

> Lyft doesn't pass laws. That's really just a semantic argument. When someone proposes a bill to a governing body, it's implied that they are trying to get it passed, even if they aren't congressfolks and don't have a vote. If not, why would they propose it? Certainly convincing legislators that a bill is a good idea is part of getting a bill passed, whether or not you are a congressperson, right? Maybe the sentence isn't exactly, technically correct, but it's not far off from reality. > Where is the scathing letter directed towards the writers/signatories/supporters of the bill in question? The letter to me reads like an expression of deep disappointment. Previously Lyft worked particularly well in concert with the city government, and Wheeler heaps praise on these past efforts. But now they're going behind the city's back and going to the state government. Maybe they are just participating in a "reasonable" business practice, but it is in stark contrast to their behavior in the past.

kodablah 8y ago
> The letter to me reads like an expression of deep disappointment While it may read as such, the fact that it's public and promoted says more than the content.

anth_anm 8y ago

> Surely it is more reasonable to act in the best interest of your company as a lobbyist than it is to act against your constituents as a politician No. Both parties of a bride are equally guilty.