6 ms·

Aside from the fact that many countries have ways of limiting lobbyist influence through law, a simple but dramatic way would be to say: 0. Lobbying is a right

Aside from the fact that many countries have ways of limiting lobbyist influence through law, a simple but dramatic way would be to say: 0. Lobbying is a right, but one that can only be exercised by individual citizens, not corporations. 1. Anyone who wishes to "lobby" congressional candidates or congresspersons must register their financial interests 2. Make it illegal to directly accept money for lobbying services (akin to prostitution) Sure, it wouldn't make lobbying impossible - but it would make it much harder.

naasking 8y ago
> 0. Lobbying is a right, but one that can only be exercised by individual citizens, not corporations. So charities and environmental groups can't lobby? Lobbying for them means designating a representative. How is that any different from what corporations are doing? They just happen to have deeper pockets. Furthermore, the fact that they have deep pockets is actually important. It means they reflect an important aspect of the economy, so ignoring their interests could also have detrimental economic effects. It's not nearly as simple as you're portraying.
- ergothus 8y ago
  > Furthermore, the fact that they have deep pockets is actually important. It means they reflect an important aspect of the economy, so ignoring their interests could also have detrimental economic effects. This embeds the idea that someone making more money has a right to a larger voice than someone that doesn't. - In my "if the world were simple" dreams I'd say something like "every voter can spend $200 - any lobbying group or corp can spend that $200 IN THEIR NAME, but then no one else, including that voter, can. Corps/groups can still raise money and represent their members (who don't have to each spend that money) but it doesn't make a small group of wealthy voters look like a big group of voters. The groups/corps would have to make sure they represented the views of their members, or those members would start revoking their permissions." Of course, the world isn't that simple, but that sums up my views on money in politics.
  - pathseeker 8y ago
    >This embeds the idea that someone making more money has a right to a larger voice than someone that doesn't. No, it's a signal that you might be proposing an economically destructive policy. You're not required to listen to lobbyists or take their suggestions.
  - naasking 8y ago
    > This embeds the idea that someone making more money has a right to a larger voice than someone that doesn't I don't see how. I just said their opinion shouldn't be ignored, which is what the OP was suggesting by banning corporations which represent large groups of shareholders and employees.
    - dlp211 8y ago
      Corporations do not represent employees.
      - naasking 8y ago
        Except they do. Politicians know that making business more difficult will affect employment.
- crdoconnor 8y ago
  >So charities and environmental groups can't lobby? They could create form letters for their members to email their representatives. Some charities I belong to operate this way. Obviously Comcast could do this too but I don't think they'd be successful getting real people to lobby on their behalf. >Furthermore, the fact that they have deep pockets is actually important. It means they reflect an important aspect of the economy, so ignoring their interests could also have detrimental economic effects. The fact that they have deep pockets means that they can broadcast their message more easily so they have an inbuilt advantage. There's no reason not to compensate for that.
  - smacktoward 8y ago
    > Obviously Comcast could do this too but I don't think they'd be successful getting real people to lobby on their behalf. You might be surprised; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing for the way it's usually done.
    - crdoconnor 8y ago
      I'm sure they'd try. Astroturfing is already illegal and not all that difficult to uncover though.
- AmericanChopper 8y ago
  >So charities and environmental groups can't lobby? Incase you didn’t know, all tax-exempt charitable organisations are already severely limited in how they’re allowed to engage in politics. They’re never allowed to endorse candidates, or directly or indirectly campaign for them.
stale2002 8y ago
> 0. Lobbying is a right, but one that can only be exercised by individual citizens, not corporations. A "corporation" isn't a thing that exists in the world. They don't have mouths, and can't speak, so it makes no sense to outlaw their ability to use the mouth that they don't have. There are people in the world. As well as groups of people. A corporation is merely the pural of person. Each person in that corporation, whether employee, or owner, should have the same speech rights as any other individual.
- brianpgordon 8y ago
  This argument is facile. There's an obvious and clear difference between a person representing their own interests and a person paid by a corporation specifically to advance its interests.
  - notahacker 8y ago
    It's not a difference which is easy to legislate without unintended consequences (people's own interests frequently overlap with those of their employer, and most people with informed opinions on the implications of a policy are in employed in areas not unlinked to that policy). What is facile is to argue that a law which simply bans corporations from hiring people describing themselves as lobbyists or government relations professionals will have any real world effect, or to pretend that there are no possible downsides from legislation which might prevent organisations like the EFF from existing or ensure that healthcare professionals are unable to make representations about healthcare to politicians.
    - brianpgordon 8y ago
      It would be entirely possible to write campaign finance laws so that organizations like the EFF can only be funded by private donations and not by corporations, if they want to make campaign contributions or run "issue" advertising. I don't really see what unintended consequences you're referring to. The problem with getting corporate money out of politics is that the people getting it wouldn't like that, not that the law would be difficult to craft in a fair way.
sigzero 8y ago
So a Union could not lobby then in your world.
- kelnos 8y ago
  No, but the union could ask their members to lobby on behalf of themselves toward a common goal. As long as that lobbying isn't a requirement for membership or influence in the org, I see no problem with that.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
smacktoward 8y ago
> 1. Anyone who wishes to "lobby" congressional candidates or congresspersons must register their financial interests Under the terms of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, anyone who spends 20% or more of their work time lobbying the Federal government already has to register themselves, and disclose both the clients they lobby on behalf of and any expenses they incur as part of their lobbying activities. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_Disclosure_Act_of_1995 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_Disclosure_Act_of_199... for more information.) Many states also have similar laws in place regarding lobbying of state officials, though obviously the details will vary depending on what state you're in.

naasking 8y ago

> 0. Lobbying is a right, but one that can only be exercised by individual citizens, not corporations. So charities and environmental groups can't lobby? Lobbying for them means designating a representative. How is that any different from what corporations are doing? They just happen to have deeper pockets. Furthermore, the fact that they have deep pockets is actually important. It means they reflect an important aspect of the economy, so ignoring their interests could also have detrimental economic effects. It's not nearly as simple as you're portraying.

ergothus 8y ago
> Furthermore, the fact that they have deep pockets is actually important. It means they reflect an important aspect of the economy, so ignoring their interests could also have detrimental economic effects. This embeds the idea that someone making more money has a right to a larger voice than someone that doesn't. - In my "if the world were simple" dreams I'd say something like "every voter can spend $200 - any lobbying group or corp can spend that $200 IN THEIR NAME, but then no one else, including that voter, can. Corps/groups can still raise money and represent their members (who don't have to each spend that money) but it doesn't make a small group of wealthy voters look like a big group of voters. The groups/corps would have to make sure they represented the views of their members, or those members would start revoking their permissions." Of course, the world isn't that simple, but that sums up my views on money in politics.
- pathseeker 8y ago
  >This embeds the idea that someone making more money has a right to a larger voice than someone that doesn't. No, it's a signal that you might be proposing an economically destructive policy. You're not required to listen to lobbyists or take their suggestions.
- naasking 8y ago
  > This embeds the idea that someone making more money has a right to a larger voice than someone that doesn't I don't see how. I just said their opinion shouldn't be ignored, which is what the OP was suggesting by banning corporations which represent large groups of shareholders and employees.
  - dlp211 8y ago
    Corporations do not represent employees.
    - naasking 8y ago
      Except they do. Politicians know that making business more difficult will affect employment.
crdoconnor 8y ago
>So charities and environmental groups can't lobby? They could create form letters for their members to email their representatives. Some charities I belong to operate this way. Obviously Comcast could do this too but I don't think they'd be successful getting real people to lobby on their behalf. >Furthermore, the fact that they have deep pockets is actually important. It means they reflect an important aspect of the economy, so ignoring their interests could also have detrimental economic effects. The fact that they have deep pockets means that they can broadcast their message more easily so they have an inbuilt advantage. There's no reason not to compensate for that.
- smacktoward 8y ago
  > Obviously Comcast could do this too but I don't think they'd be successful getting real people to lobby on their behalf. You might be surprised; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing for the way it's usually done.
  - crdoconnor 8y ago
    I'm sure they'd try. Astroturfing is already illegal and not all that difficult to uncover though.
AmericanChopper 8y ago
>So charities and environmental groups can't lobby? Incase you didn’t know, all tax-exempt charitable organisations are already severely limited in how they’re allowed to engage in politics. They’re never allowed to endorse candidates, or directly or indirectly campaign for them.

stale2002 8y ago

> 0. Lobbying is a right, but one that can only be exercised by individual citizens, not corporations. A "corporation" isn't a thing that exists in the world. They don't have mouths, and can't speak, so it makes no sense to outlaw their ability to use the mouth that they don't have. There are people in the world. As well as groups of people. A corporation is merely the pural of person. Each person in that corporation, whether employee, or owner, should have the same speech rights as any other individual.

brianpgordon 8y ago
This argument is facile. There's an obvious and clear difference between a person representing their own interests and a person paid by a corporation specifically to advance its interests.
- notahacker 8y ago
  It's not a difference which is easy to legislate without unintended consequences (people's own interests frequently overlap with those of their employer, and most people with informed opinions on the implications of a policy are in employed in areas not unlinked to that policy). What is facile is to argue that a law which simply bans corporations from hiring people describing themselves as lobbyists or government relations professionals will have any real world effect, or to pretend that there are no possible downsides from legislation which might prevent organisations like the EFF from existing or ensure that healthcare professionals are unable to make representations about healthcare to politicians.
  - brianpgordon 8y ago
    It would be entirely possible to write campaign finance laws so that organizations like the EFF can only be funded by private donations and not by corporations, if they want to make campaign contributions or run "issue" advertising. I don't really see what unintended consequences you're referring to. The problem with getting corporate money out of politics is that the people getting it wouldn't like that, not that the law would be difficult to craft in a fair way.

sigzero 8y ago

So a Union could not lobby then in your world.

kelnos 8y ago
No, but the union could ask their members to lobby on behalf of themselves toward a common goal. As long as that lobbying isn't a requirement for membership or influence in the org, I see no problem with that.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

smacktoward 8y ago

> 1. Anyone who wishes to "lobby" congressional candidates or congresspersons must register their financial interests Under the terms of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, anyone who spends 20% or more of their work time lobbying the Federal government already has to register themselves, and disclose both the clients they lobby on behalf of and any expenses they incur as part of their lobbying activities. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_Disclosure_Act_of_1995 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_Disclosure_Act_of_199... for more information.) Many states also have similar laws in place regarding lobbying of state officials, though obviously the details will vary depending on what state you're in.