6 ms·

Lobbyist help politicians accomplish what they already wanted to do. Whenever politicians enact policy some interests inevitably benefit from it, and other inte

by 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.
    - aguyfromnb 7y ago
      >How to solve this? Limit political spending to natural persons, and limit their contributions. I think this would prove to be exceedingly difficult in practice. In fact, this kind of is the system we live under, and it doesn't work. Sure, you could argue for changes in the amounts, and who can donate to what, but consider this: I believe Obama's biggest corporate donor in 2008 was Goldman Sachs, and the value of their contribution was on the order of $1,000,000 (correct me if I'm wrong). Considering the funds that Goldman Sachs has access to, and the cost of a Presidential campaign, this is a pittance. Clearly there are other forces at work here. You can fiddle with the numbers, but I don't know how you set up a system that doesn't reward "cheaters" or the already wealthy (ie received their "contributions" in advance). Which is where we're at.
- fsckboy 7y ago
  why is it necessary to allow people to talk to their leaders? why is it allowable that people be able to band together and form organizations and speak to their leaders as one with one voice? The right to petition is considered fundamental and pre-dates democracy. stop calling it "lobbying" like that means something special, it's called free speech and representative democracy. you don't like people speaking in secret? how about we register them, and call that lobbying. irritated that the people who speak up get heard? that's called life. you want to be heard, you need to speak up.
- m463 7y ago
  If it was banned, it would still happen, but not in the public eye. A relative of a friend was a politician. He used lobbyists indirectly to work on issues. Say he needed help understanding a school textbook issue. He would call up his oil lobbyist, whose job it was to make him happy. It was definitely not his job to piss him off. He would quickly get a report on the textbook issue, probably written by the expert in the field.
  - krageon 7y ago
    > If it was banned, it would still happen This is kind of a weak argument, because this goes for literally every law. Even though this is true, as a society you can still make the decision that it isn't okay. By making it as okay as it is right now, you're saying that it's just a fact of life and we need to accept it because of that. Murder is a fact of life too (as in: it happens regardless of it being illegal), but that doesn't mean we need to make it legal.
  - jyounker 7y ago
    Congress used to have The Office of Technology Assessment ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Technology_Assessment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Technology_Assessmen...) but the republican party considered its expertise to be a hinderance to corporate influence, and eliminating it was one of their first action upon taking control of the congress in the mid 90's.
  - jyounker 7y ago
    The lobbyist then gets to choose an expert which represents the lobbyists worldview. This is what he is getting paid to do.
    - m463 7y ago
      But the oil lobbyist wouldn't have a horse in the game for school textbooks. He would play fair in the hope that the politician would "play fair" on future oil issues. It's a wierd sort of politician problem solving, making do with the resources you have.
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.

by gizmo 7y ago

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.
  - aguyfromnb 7y ago
    >How to solve this? Limit political spending to natural persons, and limit their contributions. I think this would prove to be exceedingly difficult in practice. In fact, this kind of is the system we live under, and it doesn't work. Sure, you could argue for changes in the amounts, and who can donate to what, but consider this: I believe Obama's biggest corporate donor in 2008 was Goldman Sachs, and the value of their contribution was on the order of $1,000,000 (correct me if I'm wrong). Considering the funds that Goldman Sachs has access to, and the cost of a Presidential campaign, this is a pittance. Clearly there are other forces at work here. You can fiddle with the numbers, but I don't know how you set up a system that doesn't reward "cheaters" or the already wealthy (ie received their "contributions" in advance). Which is where we're at.
fsckboy 7y ago
why is it necessary to allow people to talk to their leaders? why is it allowable that people be able to band together and form organizations and speak to their leaders as one with one voice? The right to petition is considered fundamental and pre-dates democracy. stop calling it "lobbying" like that means something special, it's called free speech and representative democracy. you don't like people speaking in secret? how about we register them, and call that lobbying. irritated that the people who speak up get heard? that's called life. you want to be heard, you need to speak up.
m463 7y ago
If it was banned, it would still happen, but not in the public eye. A relative of a friend was a politician. He used lobbyists indirectly to work on issues. Say he needed help understanding a school textbook issue. He would call up his oil lobbyist, whose job it was to make him happy. It was definitely not his job to piss him off. He would quickly get a report on the textbook issue, probably written by the expert in the field.
- krageon 7y ago
  > If it was banned, it would still happen This is kind of a weak argument, because this goes for literally every law. Even though this is true, as a society you can still make the decision that it isn't okay. By making it as okay as it is right now, you're saying that it's just a fact of life and we need to accept it because of that. Murder is a fact of life too (as in: it happens regardless of it being illegal), but that doesn't mean we need to make it legal.
- jyounker 7y ago
  Congress used to have The Office of Technology Assessment ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Technology_Assessment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Technology_Assessmen...) but the republican party considered its expertise to be a hinderance to corporate influence, and eliminating it was one of their first action upon taking control of the congress in the mid 90's.
- jyounker 7y ago
  The lobbyist then gets to choose an expert which represents the lobbyists worldview. This is what he is getting paid to do.
  - m463 7y ago
    But the oil lobbyist wouldn't have a horse in the game for school textbooks. He would play fair in the hope that the politician would "play fair" on future oil issues. It's a wierd sort of politician problem solving, making do with the resources you have.

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.