6 ms·

While lobbyists have sometimes bribed officials through gifts and perks, which is illegal, lobbying is not bribery. Say you're interesting in promoting renewabl

While lobbyists have sometimes bribed officials through gifts and perks, which is illegal, lobbying is not bribery. Say you're interesting in promoting renewable energy. You and like minded people put together resources to promote renewable energy to politicians, explaining its benefits. This activity is lobbying for renewable energy.

jjoonathan 7y ago
Not only is lobbying bribery by another name, the realities of campaign finance make ours a system of mandatory bribery rather than mere moral corruption.
eeeficus 7y ago
What a demagogic way of phrasing it! So no money ends up in the account of future election campaigns?
- vintermann 7y ago
  Money isn't even the worst of it at this level. It's about networking, and what you can ask for. A top politician doesn't need to be bribed when they understand perfectly well that if they happen to need a little pocket money, they can just come and hold a speech for six figures. If the money will be there when you need it, there's only risk in letting it lie in your bank account. Likewise, blackmail. People imagine envelopes with incriminating pictures. But that kind of blackmail rarely gets used, because once you've given in to it, then what? The blackmail will still hang over your head. You'll serve the blackmailer for life. At that point the victim may think they have little to lose. (Relevant regarding Donald Trump. He has far too much ego to serve someone else for life, even if there was some "Moscow tape"). Instead, the blackmail that's powerful is the one that the victim knows will cost the blackmailer a lot to use. The understanding that if I go down, you all go down with me, is a lot more useful to make us come to an agreement. That's probably how Epstein got away with things for so long.
  - nloladze 7y ago
    Careful, you might get censored.
    - meowface 7y ago
      What? Why? No, they won't.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    "He has far too much ego to serve someone else for life" Well, that's reassuring.
ekianjo 7y ago
"Resources" is in an understatement. It involves directly paying politicians. How is that not bribery?
- Thorrez 7y ago
  Is it directly paying them? I thought it was making campaign contributions, and I don't think it can be tit for tat either.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >making campaign contributions That's the same exact thing - it sponsors their campaign = their political career. >I don't think it can be tit for tat either Just not as a written contract. It's very much tit for tat otherwise.
cryptica 7y ago
But how many politicians end up getting huge salaries from these so-called 'think tanks' after they finish their terms? How is this different from receiving a 'gift'? It's extremely reductive to even mention gifts as bribery at this stage because we are far beyond that primitive level of interaction. This unspoken agreement between politicians and think thanks is exactly the same as bribery. They're bribing politicians with (at best) implicit promises future money. This legal approach to bribery is not only evil but it's also extremely hypocritical. Usually, when people do evil things, at least they know it's evil and many of them will hear a voice at the back of their heads telling them that they should stop doing it. Now, the only voice at the back of politicians' heads is telling them "It's OK, it's not a gift/bribe, it's just a job offer given based on my skills" - Nevermind that the salary offered is 10x what they're getting now; that's just an irrelevant detail. A think tank's promises and its reputation for paying big are its currency; the result is exactly the same as bribing with gifts or money.
- jyounker 7y ago
  This is one reason why term limits are pernicious. They channel effective politicians into the lobbying industry, rather than allowing them to continue practicing their skills in government.
cryptica 7y ago
>> You and like minded people put together resources to promote renewable energy to politicians Unlike corporations and their biggest shareholders, regular people don't have resources to influence politicians. Any lobbying attempt backed by non-corporate interests will not be able to reach politicians' ears. Politicians have no time for groups/think thanks which don't have a track record of paying up after politicians finish their terms. Idealized theoretical forms of lobbying bear no resemblance to reality. To bring the ideal closer to reality, politicians would have to start reaching out to people instead of the other way round. Currently, the only reason politicians reach out to people is for a PR photo op.
- indymike 7y ago
  As a regular person, I've spent $400 to travel to DC and walk in and meet with 12 senators and congressmen. No donations required and I got to spend an hour with each as and even got treated to lunch by one of my states US reps. Got the policy change,too. So many people are way to cynical. Lobbyists show up and citizens do not. When a citizen shows up (and is rational) legislators listen.
  - nikhizzle 7y ago
    Thanks for this. Can you please write up a blog post or a comment here with a lot more detail?
    - cryptica 7y ago
      I'm skeptical of the original comment. If true, I think this kind of activity should be promoted and encouraged.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
    There's going to be constraints to this approach. There are limits to how many individuals a politician can meet with. Also, without know the specific details of the policy change we can't know how to value this approach.
  - 7y ago
ShorsHammer 7y ago
If you convince their constituents to whom they are beholden, sure. Behind closed doors, not at all, I very much agree with GP, there's a lot of pernicious shit going on that is actively harming democracies across the globe. Corporate lobbying is for the most part a well-funded, knowledgeable adversary generally in opposition to a bunch of people who at best can sign some petitions or march in the streets. It's an asymmetrical game that should be acknowledged.
- pasiaj 7y ago
  Sure, bad things happen. We have chosen a non-direct, representative political system and lobbying is a direct causal result of this chosen system. It is not a side-effect. We intentionally wanted to create a group of people who could spend their time educating themselves on the issues at hand better than people as whole ever could. Lobbying is what we wanted as a result of this system. Unfortunately this sometimes leads to regulatory capture. Some countries have been better at managing political corruption than others.
  - mtgx 7y ago
    Except the US is by far the worst at this because it allows lobbying and political influence through donations. In most other democratic countries this is illegal. It's intellectually dishonest to pretend that lobbying just means "reaching out to politicians about an issue and educating them about it." Lobbying wouldn't be such a problem and corporations wouldn't have such unshaken influence on politicians compared to the People, if that was all there was to it. But it's not just that - it's about those companies making "donations" to politicians that will then be much easier to "convince" to vote their way. Watch this video if you aren't convinced, which is just a nice visual presentation of a study that was done and found out that what People want doesn't matter, but what corporations want has a direct correlation to how politicians vote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig Also, I remember when one Congressman said post-SOPA that the anti-SOPA petitions made by people and all the calls were nice and all, but it wasn't until Google and other big companies got involved that politicians started really listening and many changed their minds on the vote.
7952 7y ago
This breaks down when politicians get some kind of personal benefit such as campaign contributions or a consulting job. This is a conflict of interest and should exclude them from any vote about the interests of the lobbyist.
- onetimemanytime 7y ago
  Nonsense. They get campaign contributions from virtually 100% of the political and economical spectrum. So do what then? Consulting job is after the post, and yes, it is used sometimes as a method of corruption (I've a read a case when some $20+M bid was given to a company and the person got $1m a year for x years after she quite the gov job. ...I read it because FBI busted them.). But being humans and all, people slip. But there's a difference, just as their is between Syria and NYC when it comes to "crime" rate /chance of dying. Just because you have a x% chance of dying from a crime in NYC, doesn't mean it is the same as Syria.
- gizmo 7y ago
  Lobbyist help politicians accomplish what they already wanted to do. Whenever politicians enact policy some interests inevitably benefit from it, and other interest's goals are frustrated by it. So of course there are going to be lobbyists (or activists) who want to argue their case on both sides, and good lobbyists are very well prepared and very persuasive. It's soft influence, and no quid pro quo is necessary for lobbyists to have a big impact on policy.
  - mtgx 7y ago
    Sure, but money shouldn't be exchanged throughout this process. That should be explicitly illegal. As would any other way to influence the politician (offering jobs, etc). Do hearings, have technical staff to consult you on issues, etc, instead.
  - mdorazio 7y ago
    You haven’t explained why lobbyists are necessary, or even a good thing. Why is a system allowing lobbying better than one that bans it in favor of politicians independently making decisions based on the will expressed by and likely benefits for their constituents? And please don’t say it’s hard for them to understand all the issues. That’s literally their job and the reason they have a staff.
coldtea 7y ago
That's the naive version of lobbying for gullible people. In practice, whether it's big oil or renewable energy (still an industry with profits) it never works like that.
keymone 7y ago
You’ve focused on the far 1% of the spectrum. What about the rest 99% of it?
marriedWpt 7y ago
The difference between theory and reality is incredible. Why not explain reality?
nabla9 7y ago
The current US campaign finance laws are legalized bribery. Lobbyists don't give perks. They funnel in money directly because it has been made completely legal.
vharuck 7y ago
How often is a lobbying group made of or led by the politician's constituents? My representative requires and verifies the home addresses of town hall attendees, but I doubt he applies the same rule to lobbyists.
jellicle 7y ago
You seem to think that lobbying involves persuasive speaking; using the power of one's words to convince legislators of the rightness of one's position. That is not the case.

jjoonathan 7y ago

Not only is lobbying bribery by another name, the realities of campaign finance make ours a system of mandatory bribery rather than mere moral corruption.

eeeficus 7y ago

What a demagogic way of phrasing it! So no money ends up in the account of future election campaigns?

vintermann 7y ago
Money isn't even the worst of it at this level. It's about networking, and what you can ask for. A top politician doesn't need to be bribed when they understand perfectly well that if they happen to need a little pocket money, they can just come and hold a speech for six figures. If the money will be there when you need it, there's only risk in letting it lie in your bank account. Likewise, blackmail. People imagine envelopes with incriminating pictures. But that kind of blackmail rarely gets used, because once you've given in to it, then what? The blackmail will still hang over your head. You'll serve the blackmailer for life. At that point the victim may think they have little to lose. (Relevant regarding Donald Trump. He has far too much ego to serve someone else for life, even if there was some "Moscow tape"). Instead, the blackmail that's powerful is the one that the victim knows will cost the blackmailer a lot to use. The understanding that if I go down, you all go down with me, is a lot more useful to make us come to an agreement. That's probably how Epstein got away with things for so long.
- nloladze 7y ago
  Careful, you might get censored.
  - meowface 7y ago
    What? Why? No, they won't.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  "He has far too much ego to serve someone else for life" Well, that's reassuring.

ekianjo 7y ago

"Resources" is in an understatement. It involves directly paying politicians. How is that not bribery?

Thorrez 7y ago
Is it directly paying them? I thought it was making campaign contributions, and I don't think it can be tit for tat either.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >making campaign contributions That's the same exact thing - it sponsors their campaign = their political career. >I don't think it can be tit for tat either Just not as a written contract. It's very much tit for tat otherwise.

cryptica 7y ago

But how many politicians end up getting huge salaries from these so-called 'think tanks' after they finish their terms? How is this different from receiving a 'gift'? It's extremely reductive to even mention gifts as bribery at this stage because we are far beyond that primitive level of interaction. This unspoken agreement between politicians and think thanks is exactly the same as bribery. They're bribing politicians with (at best) implicit promises future money. This legal approach to bribery is not only evil but it's also extremely hypocritical. Usually, when people do evil things, at least they know it's evil and many of them will hear a voice at the back of their heads telling them that they should stop doing it. Now, the only voice at the back of politicians' heads is telling them "It's OK, it's not a gift/bribe, it's just a job offer given based on my skills" - Nevermind that the salary offered is 10x what they're getting now; that's just an irrelevant detail. A think tank's promises and its reputation for paying big are its currency; the result is exactly the same as bribing with gifts or money.

jyounker 7y ago
This is one reason why term limits are pernicious. They channel effective politicians into the lobbying industry, rather than allowing them to continue practicing their skills in government.

cryptica 7y ago

>> You and like minded people put together resources to promote renewable energy to politicians Unlike corporations and their biggest shareholders, regular people don't have resources to influence politicians. Any lobbying attempt backed by non-corporate interests will not be able to reach politicians' ears. Politicians have no time for groups/think thanks which don't have a track record of paying up after politicians finish their terms. Idealized theoretical forms of lobbying bear no resemblance to reality. To bring the ideal closer to reality, politicians would have to start reaching out to people instead of the other way round. Currently, the only reason politicians reach out to people is for a PR photo op.

indymike 7y ago
As a regular person, I've spent $400 to travel to DC and walk in and meet with 12 senators and congressmen. No donations required and I got to spend an hour with each as and even got treated to lunch by one of my states US reps. Got the policy change,too. So many people are way to cynical. Lobbyists show up and citizens do not. When a citizen shows up (and is rational) legislators listen.
- nikhizzle 7y ago
  Thanks for this. Can you please write up a blog post or a comment here with a lot more detail?
  - cryptica 7y ago
    I'm skeptical of the original comment. If true, I think this kind of activity should be promoted and encouraged.
- TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
  There's going to be constraints to this approach. There are limits to how many individuals a politician can meet with. Also, without know the specific details of the policy change we can't know how to value this approach.
- 7y ago

ShorsHammer 7y ago

If you convince their constituents to whom they are beholden, sure. Behind closed doors, not at all, I very much agree with GP, there's a lot of pernicious shit going on that is actively harming democracies across the globe. Corporate lobbying is for the most part a well-funded, knowledgeable adversary generally in opposition to a bunch of people who at best can sign some petitions or march in the streets. It's an asymmetrical game that should be acknowledged.

pasiaj 7y ago
Sure, bad things happen. We have chosen a non-direct, representative political system and lobbying is a direct causal result of this chosen system. It is not a side-effect. We intentionally wanted to create a group of people who could spend their time educating themselves on the issues at hand better than people as whole ever could. Lobbying is what we wanted as a result of this system. Unfortunately this sometimes leads to regulatory capture. Some countries have been better at managing political corruption than others.
- mtgx 7y ago
  Except the US is by far the worst at this because it allows lobbying and political influence through donations. In most other democratic countries this is illegal. It's intellectually dishonest to pretend that lobbying just means "reaching out to politicians about an issue and educating them about it." Lobbying wouldn't be such a problem and corporations wouldn't have such unshaken influence on politicians compared to the People, if that was all there was to it. But it's not just that - it's about those companies making "donations" to politicians that will then be much easier to "convince" to vote their way. Watch this video if you aren't convinced, which is just a nice visual presentation of a study that was done and found out that what People want doesn't matter, but what corporations want has a direct correlation to how politicians vote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig Also, I remember when one Congressman said post-SOPA that the anti-SOPA petitions made by people and all the calls were nice and all, but it wasn't until Google and other big companies got involved that politicians started really listening and many changed their minds on the vote.

7952 7y ago

This breaks down when politicians get some kind of personal benefit such as campaign contributions or a consulting job. This is a conflict of interest and should exclude them from any vote about the interests of the lobbyist.

onetimemanytime 7y ago
Nonsense. They get campaign contributions from virtually 100% of the political and economical spectrum. So do what then? Consulting job is after the post, and yes, it is used sometimes as a method of corruption (I've a read a case when some $20+M bid was given to a company and the person got $1m a year for x years after she quite the gov job. ...I read it because FBI busted them.). But being humans and all, people slip. But there's a difference, just as their is between Syria and NYC when it comes to "crime" rate /chance of dying. Just because you have a x% chance of dying from a crime in NYC, doesn't mean it is the same as Syria.
gizmo 7y ago
Lobbyist help politicians accomplish what they already wanted to do. Whenever politicians enact policy some interests inevitably benefit from it, and other interest's goals are frustrated by it. So of course there are going to be lobbyists (or activists) who want to argue their case on both sides, and good lobbyists are very well prepared and very persuasive. It's soft influence, and no quid pro quo is necessary for lobbyists to have a big impact on policy.
- mtgx 7y ago
  Sure, but money shouldn't be exchanged throughout this process. That should be explicitly illegal. As would any other way to influence the politician (offering jobs, etc). Do hearings, have technical staff to consult you on issues, etc, instead.
- mdorazio 7y ago
  You haven’t explained why lobbyists are necessary, or even a good thing. Why is a system allowing lobbying better than one that bans it in favor of politicians independently making decisions based on the will expressed by and likely benefits for their constituents? And please don’t say it’s hard for them to understand all the issues. That’s literally their job and the reason they have a staff.

coldtea 7y ago

That's the naive version of lobbying for gullible people. In practice, whether it's big oil or renewable energy (still an industry with profits) it never works like that.

keymone 7y ago

You’ve focused on the far 1% of the spectrum. What about the rest 99% of it?

marriedWpt 7y ago

The difference between theory and reality is incredible. Why not explain reality?

nabla9 7y ago

The current US campaign finance laws are legalized bribery. Lobbyists don't give perks. They funnel in money directly because it has been made completely legal.

vharuck 7y ago

How often is a lobbying group made of or led by the politician's constituents? My representative requires and verifies the home addresses of town hall attendees, but I doubt he applies the same rule to lobbyists.

jellicle 7y ago

You seem to think that lobbying involves persuasive speaking; using the power of one's words to convince legislators of the rightness of one's position. That is not the case.