6 ms·

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 shou

by 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.
  - aguyfromnb 7y ago
    >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? Because in many situations there's a very fine line between "lobbying" and "making decisions based on the will expressed by constituents". An organized group of concerned citizens is a lobby. When it comes to outright bribing politicians, that's easy (and illegal). But there's a ton of grey-area in there. In fact, I'm not sure how you even could remove lobbying from the political process.
    - rocqua 7y ago
      > I'm not sure how you even could remove lobbying from the political process. So you get a group of interested citizens together, you write to politicians, you tell them your point of view. Nothing wrong here yet. Then some of those politicians then agree with your group. You like that! So you start raising funds to get them re-elected. At face value, nothing here is wrong. Except that you just used your money as an incentive for politicians to agree with you. They might now openly support you, not because they personally do, but because they want your financial support for re-election. Since actions speak louder than words, it just makes sense to support politicians who don't just say they agree with you, but to support politicians who actively enact policy you want. At this point, we have reached 'paying politicians for enacting policy you want'. That is bribery. Where did it all go wrong? When your lobby was able to raise funds and spend that on getting a politician re-elected. And when a few lobbies being a 'concerned group of citizens' turned into a facade for corporate interests. Simply because there is just so much more money behind corporate interests than behind concerned citizens. And hence those lobbies get more influence. How to solve this? Limit political spending to natural persons, and limit their contributions.
      - apta 7y ago
        > Where did it all go wrong? At this step: > Then some of those politicians then agree with your group. You like that! So you start raising funds to get them re-elected. At face value, nothing here is wrong.
- KaoruAoiShiho 7y ago
  It's pretty obvious there is quid pro quo in many cases. A strong society should have regulated channels for lobbying and ban any contact between lobbyists/industry and politicians outside of those channels, including after office.
  - aguyfromnb 7y ago
    >including after office. A politician might cover or be involved with a lot of different industries during tenure in office. You can't go to work in any of them after? What if you're one-term-and-done at age 45? What are you supposed to do? Sure, you could ban them. That's a sure-fire way to a government of low-competence, career politicians.
    - Hallucinaut 7y ago
      Corporate decisions are made all the time under embargo from such conflicts of interest and no one considers that perverse
  - closeparen 7y ago
    Depending on the state, lobbyists generally have to be licensed/registered and report all their contacts [0]. I have a family member who's a registered lobbyist: as a lawyer for a regulatory agency, she sometimes represents its interests in dealing with the legislature that authorizes it. [0] https://www.ncsl.org/research/ethics/50-state-chart-lobbyist-report-requirements.aspx https://www.ncsl.org/research/ethics/50-state-chart-lobbyist...
- YayamiOmate 7y ago
  "Lobbyist help politicians accomplish what they already wanted to do." Absolutely not. This is expertise. Lobbying is persuasion. Those are two different things. Purpose of lobbyingis to achieve specific decisions. If those decisions are defined by objective expertise, then they are alined but lobbying usually have different goals.
Shivetya 7y ago
many politicians use lobby and special interest groups as means to funnel money back to family and friends. this is the real swamp in US politics. friends usually involve fellow politicians "benched" by voters. so while some will come back and say lobbyist are only pushing politicians to do what the politician was going to do it simply ignores this is all just a shell game to avoid the limits on campaign donations and similar by providing a means to funnel money to friends and family of the same.
bumby 7y ago
I remember a portion of Lessig’s “Republic Lost” where a congressperson was quoted to the effect that accepting money from lobbyists wasn’t bribery if it came after voting on a topic. It was a reward not a bribe. Everyone has a right in the US to petition their government but damn if that doesn’t sound like a convenient workaround
lordlimecat 7y ago
>This breaks down when politicians get some kind of personal benefit such as campaign contributions or a consulting job. Which is not lobbying. It's illegal quid pro quo.

by 7952 7y ago

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.
- aguyfromnb 7y ago
  >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? Because in many situations there's a very fine line between "lobbying" and "making decisions based on the will expressed by constituents". An organized group of concerned citizens is a lobby. When it comes to outright bribing politicians, that's easy (and illegal). But there's a ton of grey-area in there. In fact, I'm not sure how you even could remove lobbying from the political process.
  - rocqua 7y ago
    > I'm not sure how you even could remove lobbying from the political process. So you get a group of interested citizens together, you write to politicians, you tell them your point of view. Nothing wrong here yet. Then some of those politicians then agree with your group. You like that! So you start raising funds to get them re-elected. At face value, nothing here is wrong. Except that you just used your money as an incentive for politicians to agree with you. They might now openly support you, not because they personally do, but because they want your financial support for re-election. Since actions speak louder than words, it just makes sense to support politicians who don't just say they agree with you, but to support politicians who actively enact policy you want. At this point, we have reached 'paying politicians for enacting policy you want'. That is bribery. Where did it all go wrong? When your lobby was able to raise funds and spend that on getting a politician re-elected. And when a few lobbies being a 'concerned group of citizens' turned into a facade for corporate interests. Simply because there is just so much more money behind corporate interests than behind concerned citizens. And hence those lobbies get more influence. How to solve this? Limit political spending to natural persons, and limit their contributions.
    - apta 7y ago
      > Where did it all go wrong? At this step: > Then some of those politicians then agree with your group. You like that! So you start raising funds to get them re-elected. At face value, nothing here is wrong.
KaoruAoiShiho 7y ago
It's pretty obvious there is quid pro quo in many cases. A strong society should have regulated channels for lobbying and ban any contact between lobbyists/industry and politicians outside of those channels, including after office.
- aguyfromnb 7y ago
  >including after office. A politician might cover or be involved with a lot of different industries during tenure in office. You can't go to work in any of them after? What if you're one-term-and-done at age 45? What are you supposed to do? Sure, you could ban them. That's a sure-fire way to a government of low-competence, career politicians.
  - Hallucinaut 7y ago
    Corporate decisions are made all the time under embargo from such conflicts of interest and no one considers that perverse
- closeparen 7y ago
  Depending on the state, lobbyists generally have to be licensed/registered and report all their contacts [0]. I have a family member who's a registered lobbyist: as a lawyer for a regulatory agency, she sometimes represents its interests in dealing with the legislature that authorizes it. [0] https://www.ncsl.org/research/ethics/50-state-chart-lobbyist-report-requirements.aspx https://www.ncsl.org/research/ethics/50-state-chart-lobbyist...
YayamiOmate 7y ago
"Lobbyist help politicians accomplish what they already wanted to do." Absolutely not. This is expertise. Lobbying is persuasion. Those are two different things. Purpose of lobbyingis to achieve specific decisions. If those decisions are defined by objective expertise, then they are alined but lobbying usually have different goals.

Shivetya 7y ago

many politicians use lobby and special interest groups as means to funnel money back to family and friends. this is the real swamp in US politics. friends usually involve fellow politicians "benched" by voters. so while some will come back and say lobbyist are only pushing politicians to do what the politician was going to do it simply ignores this is all just a shell game to avoid the limits on campaign donations and similar by providing a means to funnel money to friends and family of the same.

bumby 7y ago

I remember a portion of Lessig’s “Republic Lost” where a congressperson was quoted to the effect that accepting money from lobbyists wasn’t bribery if it came after voting on a topic. It was a reward not a bribe. Everyone has a right in the US to petition their government but damn if that doesn’t sound like a convenient workaround

lordlimecat 7y ago

>This breaks down when politicians get some kind of personal benefit such as campaign contributions or a consulting job. Which is not lobbying. It's illegal quid pro quo.