6 ms·

You either allow lobbying or ban it. Amazon used a legal process to tip the balance in their favour. The entire lobbying thing does sound to me like a hack in t

You either allow lobbying or ban it. Amazon used a legal process to tip the balance in their favour. The entire lobbying thing does sound to me like a hack in the entire democratic process. People should vote not companies.

afarrell 8y ago
Lobbying in some form is explicitly protected by the 1st amendment. The question is: If you form a contract for someone else to petition for a redress of greivances on you behalf, is that contract void?
- coredog64 8y ago
  Note that this is also what labor unions and advocacy organizations like the ACLU operate under. Are we still so blasé about “corporations shouldn’t have 1A rights”? To preempt, campaign contributions are considered speech because (in theory) there are legal limits on what you can do with them.
- snarfy 8y ago
  1st amendment rights apply to people. They should not apply to corporations.
  - solomatov 8y ago
    And what about NGOs? What's the difference between NGOs and corporations?
    - vonmoltke 8y ago
      NGOs are corporations, legally.
      - solomatov 8y ago
        Yes, they are :-) And forbidding them from lobbying will prevent people from organizing groups protecting their interests.
  - aetherson 8y ago
    Corporations are made up of people. How would you go about restricting corporate speech without restricting people's speech? And, more so, why would you want to? Scenario A: 1,000 people organize into a company. One of those people is the Founder/CEO who takes the vast majority of the money out of the company into his personal wealth. It is uncontested that this natural person can then use his wealth to buy ads/throw big dinner parties and invite politicians/etc. right? Scenario B: 1,000 people organize into a company. They distribute the money of the company relatively equally, meaning that no single person in the company has enough money to buy ads/throw big dinner parties and invite politicians/etc. But they think it's important for their company to lobby. But in your world, they can't. What principle is being served here? Make sure that only the personally wealthy can speak? That doesn't sound amazing. What exact types of groups do you want to deny speech rights to? "Company" is a vague term. Do you want to deny speech rights to non-profits? To political parties? If you deny speech rights only to corporations organized under certain for-profit tax rules, do you imagine that it would be hard for Amazon to work around that rule?
    - snarfy 8y ago
      > But they think it's important for their company to lobby. But in your world, they can't. Sure they can, just not under the (limited liability) umbrella of the corporation. Do you believe the lobbying done by Amazon is approved of by all Amazon employees? Do you want foreign corporations lobbying the government?
      - darksaints 8y ago
        The employees aren't the ones being represented by lobbyists. It's the shareholders.
      - aetherson 8y ago
        What does it mean for people not to be able to do things "under the umbrella of the corporation"? Are they allowed to pool their resources or aren't they? If they are, but they have to wink and say, "But this money that stems from the company is funneled through a different resource-pooling group," how do you imagine the world is different? Industry lobbying groups already exist. The fact that not all Amazon employees approve of the lobbying is irrelevant. Not all union members approve of all the union lobbying done. Should we silence unions? Not all members of a political party approve of all the positions taken by political parties. Should we silence political parties? When people join up into groups, they trade increased power for the fact that the group will not perfectly reflect their preferences. It surely is the case that lots of people who work at Amazon want Amazon to continue to lobby for things that will help Amazon become more valuable, thus making it less likely they will be laid off and making their equity more valuable. In what way is the world better if Amazon increases Jeff Bezos' salary by $AMOUNT_THEY_SPEND_ON_LOBBYING and then Jeff Bezos spends that money on lobbying for whatever he wants, which surely includes "making Amazon successful"? Even if Amazon rigorously does not direct him to spend that money or audit his efforts? I'm fine with foreign companies lobbying the government. Why wouldn't I be?
  - abtinf 8y ago
    So you think the New York Times doesn’t have free speech rights?
    - snarfy 8y ago
      In the context of lobbying, they shouldn't. Should Fox News? They could lobby that all press needs a specific press badge to cover certain media events. The problem isn't free speech, it's free speech in the context of lobbying. If lobbying is free speech and corporations have free speech, what should go, lobbying or free speech? Having both is clearly a problem.
- dhimes 8y ago
  That's what makes it an interesting problem. How can we reduce the influence on government that money allows? I think all meetings should be public, with publicly available transcripts and/or recordings. They are free to meet, but not in private.
  - afarrell 8y ago
    > all meetings should be public What if someone goes to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting in Arlington, Virginia? What if that meeting happens to have some minor official from OSHA in attendance? What if people go from the meeting to a local bagel shop?
    - dhimes 8y ago
      As long as they don't discuss business, no problem. Things like this come up all the time. People inside a business can't discuss insider trading stuff at parties. But any talks that are explicit efforts of lobbying should be public and available.
- badpun 8y ago
  My limited (understanding) of the state of things in the US is that the lobbying itself is a problem mostly because the whole political system is driven by donations, which of course disproportionally come from the rich actors. Here in Poland the parties are sponsored by the state itself and donations are a very limited factor, which makes the lobbying not very effective and hence not a real factor.
  - andrewla 8y ago
    That the system is driven by donations is true, but misleading -- the maximum amount that any person or PAC can donate to a candidate is $5000. Only by acting collectively can this sort of thing make a difference. Large organizations like the National Rifle Associations have influence not because they can bribe politicians through donations, but because their large membership means that an endorsement or condemnation from that organization can cause the members to act individually in support of or against a politician. For that matter, political parties in the United States are really no more than giant PAC in themselves -- they help candidates by narrowing their field of support to a single candidate in elections and by helping them get the signatures necessary to get on the ballots (which are technically open to anyone, not just those affiliated with a party), in exchange for which members of the party are expected, to some degree, to support party-line initiatives.
    - darksaints 8y ago
      > the maximum amount that any person or PAC can donate to a candidate is $5000. This is not true for super PACs. Their only restriction is that they can't coordinate directly with a candidate. This is problematic because it is incredibly simple to coordinate directly but hide your tracks, and it's also incredibly simple to coordinate indirectly.
    - indigochill 8y ago
      >the maximum amount that any person or PAC can donate to a candidate is $5000. Where are these contribution numbers coming from, then? http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=B http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=B
- andrewla 8y ago
  > The question is: If you form a contract for someone else to petition for a redress of greivances on you behalf, is that contract void? I'm not sure that this is in the end a distinction that is useful. Even making such contracts unenforceable would not really change things. Neither party to the contract is in violation of the law. So if a group lobbies on my behalf, and I pay them, then all is well and good. If there's a dispute, and after they lobby, I refuse to pay them (even for cause) then the enforceability of the contract comes into play, but that's a little more rare and the extralegal system (like reputation) means that this will do little to curtail lobbying.
cle 8y ago
What are companies composed of? People. I'm not arguing that companies are negatively biasing democratic representation, I think they are. But they are just people too, so this particular argument is pretty weak to me.

afarrell 8y ago

Lobbying in some form is explicitly protected by the 1st amendment. The question is: If you form a contract for someone else to petition for a redress of greivances on you behalf, is that contract void?

coredog64 8y ago
Note that this is also what labor unions and advocacy organizations like the ACLU operate under. Are we still so blasé about “corporations shouldn’t have 1A rights”? To preempt, campaign contributions are considered speech because (in theory) there are legal limits on what you can do with them.
snarfy 8y ago
1st amendment rights apply to people. They should not apply to corporations.
- solomatov 8y ago
  And what about NGOs? What's the difference between NGOs and corporations?
  - vonmoltke 8y ago
    NGOs are corporations, legally.
    - solomatov 8y ago
      Yes, they are :-) And forbidding them from lobbying will prevent people from organizing groups protecting their interests.
- aetherson 8y ago
  Corporations are made up of people. How would you go about restricting corporate speech without restricting people's speech? And, more so, why would you want to? Scenario A: 1,000 people organize into a company. One of those people is the Founder/CEO who takes the vast majority of the money out of the company into his personal wealth. It is uncontested that this natural person can then use his wealth to buy ads/throw big dinner parties and invite politicians/etc. right? Scenario B: 1,000 people organize into a company. They distribute the money of the company relatively equally, meaning that no single person in the company has enough money to buy ads/throw big dinner parties and invite politicians/etc. But they think it's important for their company to lobby. But in your world, they can't. What principle is being served here? Make sure that only the personally wealthy can speak? That doesn't sound amazing. What exact types of groups do you want to deny speech rights to? "Company" is a vague term. Do you want to deny speech rights to non-profits? To political parties? If you deny speech rights only to corporations organized under certain for-profit tax rules, do you imagine that it would be hard for Amazon to work around that rule?
  - snarfy 8y ago
    > But they think it's important for their company to lobby. But in your world, they can't. Sure they can, just not under the (limited liability) umbrella of the corporation. Do you believe the lobbying done by Amazon is approved of by all Amazon employees? Do you want foreign corporations lobbying the government?
    - darksaints 8y ago
      The employees aren't the ones being represented by lobbyists. It's the shareholders.
    - aetherson 8y ago
      What does it mean for people not to be able to do things "under the umbrella of the corporation"? Are they allowed to pool their resources or aren't they? If they are, but they have to wink and say, "But this money that stems from the company is funneled through a different resource-pooling group," how do you imagine the world is different? Industry lobbying groups already exist. The fact that not all Amazon employees approve of the lobbying is irrelevant. Not all union members approve of all the union lobbying done. Should we silence unions? Not all members of a political party approve of all the positions taken by political parties. Should we silence political parties? When people join up into groups, they trade increased power for the fact that the group will not perfectly reflect their preferences. It surely is the case that lots of people who work at Amazon want Amazon to continue to lobby for things that will help Amazon become more valuable, thus making it less likely they will be laid off and making their equity more valuable. In what way is the world better if Amazon increases Jeff Bezos' salary by $AMOUNT_THEY_SPEND_ON_LOBBYING and then Jeff Bezos spends that money on lobbying for whatever he wants, which surely includes "making Amazon successful"? Even if Amazon rigorously does not direct him to spend that money or audit his efforts? I'm fine with foreign companies lobbying the government. Why wouldn't I be?
- abtinf 8y ago
  So you think the New York Times doesn’t have free speech rights?
  - snarfy 8y ago
    In the context of lobbying, they shouldn't. Should Fox News? They could lobby that all press needs a specific press badge to cover certain media events. The problem isn't free speech, it's free speech in the context of lobbying. If lobbying is free speech and corporations have free speech, what should go, lobbying or free speech? Having both is clearly a problem.
dhimes 8y ago
That's what makes it an interesting problem. How can we reduce the influence on government that money allows? I think all meetings should be public, with publicly available transcripts and/or recordings. They are free to meet, but not in private.
- afarrell 8y ago
  > all meetings should be public What if someone goes to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting in Arlington, Virginia? What if that meeting happens to have some minor official from OSHA in attendance? What if people go from the meeting to a local bagel shop?
  - dhimes 8y ago
    As long as they don't discuss business, no problem. Things like this come up all the time. People inside a business can't discuss insider trading stuff at parties. But any talks that are explicit efforts of lobbying should be public and available.
badpun 8y ago
My limited (understanding) of the state of things in the US is that the lobbying itself is a problem mostly because the whole political system is driven by donations, which of course disproportionally come from the rich actors. Here in Poland the parties are sponsored by the state itself and donations are a very limited factor, which makes the lobbying not very effective and hence not a real factor.
- andrewla 8y ago
  That the system is driven by donations is true, but misleading -- the maximum amount that any person or PAC can donate to a candidate is $5000. Only by acting collectively can this sort of thing make a difference. Large organizations like the National Rifle Associations have influence not because they can bribe politicians through donations, but because their large membership means that an endorsement or condemnation from that organization can cause the members to act individually in support of or against a politician. For that matter, political parties in the United States are really no more than giant PAC in themselves -- they help candidates by narrowing their field of support to a single candidate in elections and by helping them get the signatures necessary to get on the ballots (which are technically open to anyone, not just those affiliated with a party), in exchange for which members of the party are expected, to some degree, to support party-line initiatives.
  - darksaints 8y ago
    > the maximum amount that any person or PAC can donate to a candidate is $5000. This is not true for super PACs. Their only restriction is that they can't coordinate directly with a candidate. This is problematic because it is incredibly simple to coordinate directly but hide your tracks, and it's also incredibly simple to coordinate indirectly.
  - indigochill 8y ago
    >the maximum amount that any person or PAC can donate to a candidate is $5000. Where are these contribution numbers coming from, then? http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=B http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=B
andrewla 8y ago
> The question is: If you form a contract for someone else to petition for a redress of greivances on you behalf, is that contract void? I'm not sure that this is in the end a distinction that is useful. Even making such contracts unenforceable would not really change things. Neither party to the contract is in violation of the law. So if a group lobbies on my behalf, and I pay them, then all is well and good. If there's a dispute, and after they lobby, I refuse to pay them (even for cause) then the enforceability of the contract comes into play, but that's a little more rare and the extralegal system (like reputation) means that this will do little to curtail lobbying.

cle 8y ago

What are companies composed of? People. I'm not arguing that companies are negatively biasing democratic representation, I think they are. But they are just people too, so this particular argument is pretty weak to me.