4 ms·

> Lobbying is pure corruption I never understood why more people don't see it this way. You literally pay money to get X bill passed. If that's not corruption

> Lobbying is pure corruption I never understood why more people don't see it this way. You literally pay money to get X bill passed. If that's not corruption I don't know what is.

colejohnson66 7y ago
Because no one wants to think that “their side” is corrupt. It’s always the other side.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
skrebbel 7y ago
I think much of Europe is looking at the US that way. It's mind blowing, especially how much it happens in the open. We have lots of corruption too, but it's mostly hidden and if it gets out it's a scandal. In the US it appears to be just normal matter of fact stuff. Company funds politician; politician gets elected; favourable law gets passed; nobody bats an eye.
- rayiner 7y ago
  Much of Europe must be very ignorant about American law then, because it is illegal here for companies to fund the election campaigns of candidates.
  - geofft 7y ago
    Are you arguing that Google NetPAC giving money to candidates' election campaigns is in some meaningful way not Google giving money to candidates? If so, what is that meaningful way? (I realize that this is very different in a legal way, i.e., it would be illegal for money from Google to go to candidates without first being routed through employees' salaries and then to NetPAC, but because it is, it's quite legal and it's totally fine that donations from NetPAC are still decided by senior Google execs and the PAC represents itself to candidates as supporting Google's interests. I'm asking if this is different in a practical way.)
  - JohnFen 7y ago
    This is only kinda true. It's illegal for companies to fund the election campaigns of candidates above a certain dollar amount -- unless it's done the right way. Our system appears quite corrupt when it comes to bribery. That there are so many legal ways to do it (and not call it bribery) only underscores that.
rayiner 7y ago
Because it’s not true. It’s a falsehood perpetuated by people who seek to delegitimize the status quo. You pay people to make PowerPoint presentations about the proposed legislation. (And create talking points and white papers and that sort of thing. A lot of it is just arming legislators with data and arguments to support positions they support anyway.)
- geofft 7y ago
  In many cases you're paying people to create the text of the laws themselves. Also, how is "paying people to make PowerPoint presentations and talking points about proposed legislation so that legislators can be convinced that a certain law should be passed" not just a form of "paying to pass a certain law"? When I set out to write complex software, I generally collect data, make arguments, write design docs / white papers, and occasionally make PowerPoint presentations about how the software should be designed and why; that's part of the process of meaningfully developing software just as much as banging out some code in a text editor is. I'm still a software developer, and when the company is paying me to make presentations and arguments in favor of getting software developed, they are absolutely paying me to develop software. (Also, what's wrong with seeking to delegitimize the status quo? In other contexts, don't we call that "disruption"? It might be a falsehood, but we can debate the substance of a claim without attacking the motives of the people making a claim.)
  - Fezzik 7y ago
    The entire legislature still has to vote on the law though, and lobbyists are never meeting with all, or even more than a few, specific representatives. I would say a much bigger problem is the towing of the party line - whatever senior members propose, junior members vote for, else they risk being ousted from their party. Also, I have always found the blaming of lobbyists odd: I am confused by the blaming of lobbyists for presenting their agenda to a legislator, who then promotes that agenda, leading to the passing of a law that is pro-that-agenda. I would place all the blame on the legislators. It’s like, if I approach my boss and ask for excessive raises over and over, and wine and dine her, and then I keep getting those raises, should my co-workers be far more mad at me or my boss? It seems to me it is my boss’s fault for giving the raise, as she holds all the real power, not my fault for asking. She has the duty to decline if the request is improper. I do not believe I have a duty to not make my case, despite probably being scummy. What I am doing may be frowned upon, but if my boss is swayed by a few compliments and a donation to her charity of choice, she probably should not be the boss. The same goes for legislators - stop voting for the dummies with no scruples, and stop thinking it is the fault of anyone other than the people who actually vote for these hypothetical bills that result in so many one-sided, pro one-company-or-religion-or-whateveror, awful laws. I personally feel lobbyists are scummy, but I fail to see them as blameworthy in regards to the laws we actually end up with.

> Lobbying is pure corruption I never understood why more people don't see it this way. You literally pay money to get X bill passed. If that's not corruption I don't know what is.

colejohnson66 7y ago

Because no one wants to think that “their side” is corrupt. It’s always the other side.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

skrebbel 7y ago

I think much of Europe is looking at the US that way. It's mind blowing, especially how much it happens in the open. We have lots of corruption too, but it's mostly hidden and if it gets out it's a scandal. In the US it appears to be just normal matter of fact stuff. Company funds politician; politician gets elected; favourable law gets passed; nobody bats an eye.

rayiner 7y ago
Much of Europe must be very ignorant about American law then, because it is illegal here for companies to fund the election campaigns of candidates.
- geofft 7y ago
  Are you arguing that Google NetPAC giving money to candidates' election campaigns is in some meaningful way not Google giving money to candidates? If so, what is that meaningful way? (I realize that this is very different in a legal way, i.e., it would be illegal for money from Google to go to candidates without first being routed through employees' salaries and then to NetPAC, but because it is, it's quite legal and it's totally fine that donations from NetPAC are still decided by senior Google execs and the PAC represents itself to candidates as supporting Google's interests. I'm asking if this is different in a practical way.)
- JohnFen 7y ago
  This is only kinda true. It's illegal for companies to fund the election campaigns of candidates above a certain dollar amount -- unless it's done the right way. Our system appears quite corrupt when it comes to bribery. That there are so many legal ways to do it (and not call it bribery) only underscores that.

rayiner 7y ago

Because it’s not true. It’s a falsehood perpetuated by people who seek to delegitimize the status quo. You pay people to make PowerPoint presentations about the proposed legislation. (And create talking points and white papers and that sort of thing. A lot of it is just arming legislators with data and arguments to support positions they support anyway.)

geofft 7y ago
In many cases you're paying people to create the text of the laws themselves. Also, how is "paying people to make PowerPoint presentations and talking points about proposed legislation so that legislators can be convinced that a certain law should be passed" not just a form of "paying to pass a certain law"? When I set out to write complex software, I generally collect data, make arguments, write design docs / white papers, and occasionally make PowerPoint presentations about how the software should be designed and why; that's part of the process of meaningfully developing software just as much as banging out some code in a text editor is. I'm still a software developer, and when the company is paying me to make presentations and arguments in favor of getting software developed, they are absolutely paying me to develop software. (Also, what's wrong with seeking to delegitimize the status quo? In other contexts, don't we call that "disruption"? It might be a falsehood, but we can debate the substance of a claim without attacking the motives of the people making a claim.)
- Fezzik 7y ago
  The entire legislature still has to vote on the law though, and lobbyists are never meeting with all, or even more than a few, specific representatives. I would say a much bigger problem is the towing of the party line - whatever senior members propose, junior members vote for, else they risk being ousted from their party. Also, I have always found the blaming of lobbyists odd: I am confused by the blaming of lobbyists for presenting their agenda to a legislator, who then promotes that agenda, leading to the passing of a law that is pro-that-agenda. I would place all the blame on the legislators. It’s like, if I approach my boss and ask for excessive raises over and over, and wine and dine her, and then I keep getting those raises, should my co-workers be far more mad at me or my boss? It seems to me it is my boss’s fault for giving the raise, as she holds all the real power, not my fault for asking. She has the duty to decline if the request is improper. I do not believe I have a duty to not make my case, despite probably being scummy. What I am doing may be frowned upon, but if my boss is swayed by a few compliments and a donation to her charity of choice, she probably should not be the boss. The same goes for legislators - stop voting for the dummies with no scruples, and stop thinking it is the fault of anyone other than the people who actually vote for these hypothetical bills that result in so many one-sided, pro one-company-or-religion-or-whateveror, awful laws. I personally feel lobbyists are scummy, but I fail to see them as blameworthy in regards to the laws we actually end up with.