3 ms·

Isn't this the point of politicians pressuring corporations? I remember back, way back, when Apple was caught off guard and "appropriately" stepped up with lobb

Isn't this the point of politicians pressuring corporations? I remember back, way back, when Apple was caught off guard and "appropriately" stepped up with lobbying and political contributions. It is hard for me to find fault with any company which lobbies the government because they have no choice. If they don't play the game someone else will and use their influence to get the power of government applied to their competitors directly or indirectly. One way to fix it is not to prevent anyone from spending money on campaigns but to instead prohibit politicians, their immediate family, and relatives, from participating in any position that may have influence over a regulating body. It is very common to have family of politicians benefit by either getting jobs directly with a lobbying company or lobbying firm but the other method is through PACs which pay them huge salaries for part time work. I could care less what they do before they are in office but once in it needs to be clamped down. congress and their relatives are more likely to increase their wealth by magnitudes than lose it, the reason is simple, they structured the rules to benefit them and make it nigh impossible to unseat them

dfrage 8y ago
A very good book length treatment of this can be found in Peter Schweizer's Extortion: How Politicians Extract Your Money, Buy Votes, and Line Their Own Pockets https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0544103343/ https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0544103343/ And it just so happens that his latest book covers the family angle: Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0062569368/ https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0062569368/ Big companies don't have any choice if they want to stay in existence without shakedowns that might end up crushing them. Microsoft's biggest crime in the 1990s as Washington viewed it? Not spending enough money there.
sandworm101 8y ago
>>> instead prohibit politicians, their immediate family, and relatives, from participating in any position An interesting idea in principal, but not legal or even practical under western systems of government. If my brother runs for office and wins, that shouldn't limit my employment options. We aren't going to fire people from government jobs because of the actions of their family members.
- BubRoss 8y ago
  Not legal? That's literally what nepotism laws are about.
andrewla 8y ago
> One way to fix it is not to prevent anyone from spending money on campaigns but to instead prohibit politicians, their immediate family, and relatives, from participating in any position that may have influence over a regulating body. It is very common to have family of politicians benefit by either getting jobs directly with a lobbying company or lobbying firm but the other method is through PACs which pay them huge salaries for part time work. This is explicitly forbidden by both House and Senate rules. If you have concrete examples, I would recommend publishing them where you can or contacting the correct committee [1] or [2]. These are specific implementations of the statutory rules about bribery, and the case you describe is almost certainly applicable. The biggest commonly used loophole in this policy is that there are no restrictions after the politician leaves office, which leads to the so-called "revolving door" where former politicians are employed as lobbyists [3]. While the practice makes sense in a good faith setting -- former legislators are familiar with the processes and individuals, and thus can be more effective at presenting the information that the lobbying organization wants to bring to their attention -- ethically it is a minefield because it is impossible to distinguish it from deferred bribery. [1] https://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/ https://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/ [2] https://ethics.house.gov/contact-us https://ethics.house.gov/contact-us [3] https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/top.php?display=Z https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/top.php?display=Z
darksaints 8y ago
I'm of the opinion that the effect of lobbying is tiny. Lobbyists are communicating with representatives about policy...something that every organization should attempt to do. Politicians rely on lobbyists to inform their decisions. The real culprit in the pervasive corporatism in the US is campaign finance. Quid pro quo is the name of the game here. Politicians know that if corporations aren't helping them get elected that they will be helping their opponents get elected. It's a hell of a lot easier to say no to a lobbyist than it is to a campaign donor that could easily turn on you. If we banned corporate lobbying, Congress would simply make more uninformed decisions, but banning corporate campaign finance would eliminate an incentive for deliberately bad decisions.
- btilly 8y ago
  It looks to me like your opinion is based on drawing an artificial distinction between "real lobbyists" and what real lobbyists actually do. It is the job of lobbyists to get politicians to do what the lobbyist wants. Campaign finance, job offers, favors for people the politician cares about, status symbols such as honorary degrees - all are normal stock in trade for a lobbyist. That said, I agree. Lobbyists who do none of the things that are known to be effective, are ineffective and do not have an impact. They also do not deliver results and do not tend to get happy clients.
  - andrewla 8y ago
    Lobbying has a real and narrow legal definition, and it does not include the other things you list there. It sounds like you're agreeing with GP and that you don't think that lobbying is that effective.
    - btilly 8y ago
      Given sites like https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lobby_contribs.php https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lobby_contribs.php that document the campaign contributions of lobbyists, I'm going to want a reference to the legal definition of lobbying that excludes campaign contributions.

dfrage 8y ago

A very good book length treatment of this can be found in Peter Schweizer's Extortion: How Politicians Extract Your Money, Buy Votes, and Line Their Own Pockets https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0544103343/ https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0544103343/ And it just so happens that his latest book covers the family angle: Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0062569368/ https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0062569368/ Big companies don't have any choice if they want to stay in existence without shakedowns that might end up crushing them. Microsoft's biggest crime in the 1990s as Washington viewed it? Not spending enough money there.

sandworm101 8y ago

>>> instead prohibit politicians, their immediate family, and relatives, from participating in any position An interesting idea in principal, but not legal or even practical under western systems of government. If my brother runs for office and wins, that shouldn't limit my employment options. We aren't going to fire people from government jobs because of the actions of their family members.

BubRoss 8y ago
Not legal? That's literally what nepotism laws are about.

andrewla 8y ago

> One way to fix it is not to prevent anyone from spending money on campaigns but to instead prohibit politicians, their immediate family, and relatives, from participating in any position that may have influence over a regulating body. It is very common to have family of politicians benefit by either getting jobs directly with a lobbying company or lobbying firm but the other method is through PACs which pay them huge salaries for part time work. This is explicitly forbidden by both House and Senate rules. If you have concrete examples, I would recommend publishing them where you can or contacting the correct committee [1] or [2]. These are specific implementations of the statutory rules about bribery, and the case you describe is almost certainly applicable. The biggest commonly used loophole in this policy is that there are no restrictions after the politician leaves office, which leads to the so-called "revolving door" where former politicians are employed as lobbyists [3]. While the practice makes sense in a good faith setting -- former legislators are familiar with the processes and individuals, and thus can be more effective at presenting the information that the lobbying organization wants to bring to their attention -- ethically it is a minefield because it is impossible to distinguish it from deferred bribery. [1] https://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/ https://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/ [2] https://ethics.house.gov/contact-us https://ethics.house.gov/contact-us [3] https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/top.php?display=Z https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/top.php?display=Z

darksaints 8y ago

I'm of the opinion that the effect of lobbying is tiny. Lobbyists are communicating with representatives about policy...something that every organization should attempt to do. Politicians rely on lobbyists to inform their decisions. The real culprit in the pervasive corporatism in the US is campaign finance. Quid pro quo is the name of the game here. Politicians know that if corporations aren't helping them get elected that they will be helping their opponents get elected. It's a hell of a lot easier to say no to a lobbyist than it is to a campaign donor that could easily turn on you. If we banned corporate lobbying, Congress would simply make more uninformed decisions, but banning corporate campaign finance would eliminate an incentive for deliberately bad decisions.

btilly 8y ago
It looks to me like your opinion is based on drawing an artificial distinction between "real lobbyists" and what real lobbyists actually do. It is the job of lobbyists to get politicians to do what the lobbyist wants. Campaign finance, job offers, favors for people the politician cares about, status symbols such as honorary degrees - all are normal stock in trade for a lobbyist. That said, I agree. Lobbyists who do none of the things that are known to be effective, are ineffective and do not have an impact. They also do not deliver results and do not tend to get happy clients.
- andrewla 8y ago
  Lobbying has a real and narrow legal definition, and it does not include the other things you list there. It sounds like you're agreeing with GP and that you don't think that lobbying is that effective.
  - btilly 8y ago
    Given sites like https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lobby_contribs.php https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lobby_contribs.php that document the campaign contributions of lobbyists, I'm going to want a reference to the legal definition of lobbying that excludes campaign contributions.