4 ms·

Sure, and I appreciate you recognizing the miscommunication. My point is actually quite well illustrated by your examples. Amazon lobbied its heart out to avo

Sure, and I appreciate you recognizing the miscommunication. My point is actually quite well illustrated by your examples. Amazon lobbied its heart out to avoid state taxes on goods sold, and failed. Now in the article you linked, it was spun as some big win for Amazon, but if that's the case, why were they lobbying (unsuccessfully) against it for so long? Lobbying doesn't work, not nearly as well as people think it does. It's easy to assume money makes laws happen, but if you look at the actual quantities involved, it's a relative pittance compared to individual contributions to campaigns, and as much as we pretend like voters are complete sheep, the reality is more complicated. Is corporate lobbying a problem? Definitely. Is is this singular driving force in politics? No.

skh 8y ago
....why were they lobbying (unsuccessfully) against it for so long? When they were growing they lobbied against. When it became a competitive advantage they lobbied for them. Lobbying doesn't work, not nearly as well as people think it does. It works quite well. Both in terms of building walls to discourage competition and to write favorable changes to existing laws. It is in essence a singular force in politics. By lobbying I mean the whole campaign finance machine where rich people personally donate to a campaing and then have their companies do so too. Lobbying is just a proxy for "money in politics" and not just the official lobbyists that are registered. The soft money in politics dwarfs direct campaign contributions. https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1286&context=umblr https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/03/11/a-new-experiment-shows-how-money-buys-access-to-congress/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.dad3009bb309 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/03/1... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/04/29/yes-you-can-buy-your-way-into-a-congressional-seat/?utm_term=.de9931641311 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/04/29/yes-y... https://www.npr.org/2014/02/13/276448190/a-closer-look-at-how-corporations-influence-congress https://www.npr.org/2014/02/13/276448190/a-closer-look-at-ho...
- diminoten 8y ago
  I never disagreed that it worked, I said it worked less well than people think. And what you call soft money is actually called freedom of expression, and you're going to be a lot harder pressed than you think to prove that soft money works as directly as you're claiming. Finally, no lobbying is not a substitute for "money in politics". That's factually wrong.
  - Faark 8y ago
    > And what you call soft money is actually called freedom of expression Yes, those with more capital have more ways to express themselves. This is in conflict the spirit of democracy, were everyone has equal weight. And while democracy seems more resistant to such power imbalances than other forms of governance, it might still be beneficial for society to keep such imbalances in check.
    - diminoten 8y ago
      People with money do have now ways to express themselves, what's with with that? There is a floor to expression but no ceiling.

skh 8y ago

....why were they lobbying (unsuccessfully) against it for so long? When they were growing they lobbied against. When it became a competitive advantage they lobbied for them. Lobbying doesn't work, not nearly as well as people think it does. It works quite well. Both in terms of building walls to discourage competition and to write favorable changes to existing laws. It is in essence a singular force in politics. By lobbying I mean the whole campaign finance machine where rich people personally donate to a campaing and then have their companies do so too. Lobbying is just a proxy for "money in politics" and not just the official lobbyists that are registered. The soft money in politics dwarfs direct campaign contributions. https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1286&context=umblr https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/03/11/a-new-experiment-shows-how-money-buys-access-to-congress/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.dad3009bb309 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/03/1... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/04/29/yes-you-can-buy-your-way-into-a-congressional-seat/?utm_term=.de9931641311 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/04/29/yes-y... https://www.npr.org/2014/02/13/276448190/a-closer-look-at-how-corporations-influence-congress https://www.npr.org/2014/02/13/276448190/a-closer-look-at-ho...

diminoten 8y ago
I never disagreed that it worked, I said it worked less well than people think. And what you call soft money is actually called freedom of expression, and you're going to be a lot harder pressed than you think to prove that soft money works as directly as you're claiming. Finally, no lobbying is not a substitute for "money in politics". That's factually wrong.
- Faark 8y ago
  > And what you call soft money is actually called freedom of expression Yes, those with more capital have more ways to express themselves. This is in conflict the spirit of democracy, were everyone has equal weight. And while democracy seems more resistant to such power imbalances than other forms of governance, it might still be beneficial for society to keep such imbalances in check.
  - diminoten 8y ago
    People with money do have now ways to express themselves, what's with with that? There is a floor to expression but no ceiling.