6 ms·

> 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 fo

> 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.
        zimpenfish 8y ago
        > it’s illegal for corporations to donate to candidates. Only directly, I thought? Can't they can give money to PACs which then give to candidates? In theory there's no collusion but...
        lmm 8y ago
        The PAC are required not to coordinate and they can be scrupulous about never being in the same room as the candidate. But they don't need to coordinate to e.g. run a TV ad campaign endorsing a candidate who's done something they like.
        zimpenfish 8y ago
        Although they do appear to "coordinate" quite effectively. e.g. https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/super-pac-coordination_us_56463f85e4b045bf3def0273 https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/super-pac-coordinatio...
        rayiner 8y ago
        They can’t contribute to PACs either. PACs just pool individual contributions. They can give to SuperPACs, but SuperPACs can’t contribute to candidates.
    - moosey 8y ago
      Local level bribery might not take the same forms that it takes in other countries, but the top level bribery is easy to see. We have massively expensive elections that are used to direct money towards a massively expensive system of 'election contractors' all of whom were elected officials at some point that now receive dark money via this system. Of course, compared to our lobbying system, where people like Joe Lieberman now work, taking money to inform other elected officials that if they play the game right, they'll also make millions from corporations 'lobbying' the government. They'll help to make sure that you have a long career with lots of attention by funding your campaigns. Lobbying sounds great, but like many things, we've perverted it.
      - darawk 8y ago
        Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying lobbying is great. I'm merely trying to keep some perspective that lobbying, while not ideal, is still much better than actual bribery.
  - vkou 8y ago
    One's illegal.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - anth_anm 8y ago
    We have laws setup around allowing lobbying. When you just make the rampant corruption legal, it ceases to be corruption. Flawless system.
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.

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.
      - zimpenfish 8y ago
        > it’s illegal for corporations to donate to candidates. Only directly, I thought? Can't they can give money to PACs which then give to candidates? In theory there's no collusion but...
        lmm 8y ago
        The PAC are required not to coordinate and they can be scrupulous about never being in the same room as the candidate. But they don't need to coordinate to e.g. run a TV ad campaign endorsing a candidate who's done something they like.
        zimpenfish 8y ago
        Although they do appear to "coordinate" quite effectively. e.g. https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/super-pac-coordination_us_56463f85e4b045bf3def0273 https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/super-pac-coordinatio...
        rayiner 8y ago
        They can’t contribute to PACs either. PACs just pool individual contributions. They can give to SuperPACs, but SuperPACs can’t contribute to candidates.
  - moosey 8y ago
    Local level bribery might not take the same forms that it takes in other countries, but the top level bribery is easy to see. We have massively expensive elections that are used to direct money towards a massively expensive system of 'election contractors' all of whom were elected officials at some point that now receive dark money via this system. Of course, compared to our lobbying system, where people like Joe Lieberman now work, taking money to inform other elected officials that if they play the game right, they'll also make millions from corporations 'lobbying' the government. They'll help to make sure that you have a long career with lots of attention by funding your campaigns. Lobbying sounds great, but like many things, we've perverted it.
    - darawk 8y ago
      Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying lobbying is great. I'm merely trying to keep some perspective that lobbying, while not ideal, is still much better than actual bribery.
- vkou 8y ago
  One's illegal.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- anth_anm 8y ago
  We have laws setup around allowing lobbying. When you just make the rampant corruption legal, it ceases to be corruption. Flawless system.

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.