3 ms·

>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

>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.
  - rocqua 7y ago
    PACs. They are not direct campaign contributions, (the candidate does not get to direct how the contributions are spent). But they are money spent on re-election anyway.
mdorazio 7y ago
Notice how you said a group of concerned citizens is a lobby, not a lobbyist. The line gets crossed when you go from a group of actual human constituents collectively asking a representative for something to either a corporation asking a representative for something or a group retaining the services of a professional individual whose job it is to convince politicians of something. Lobbies are mostly ok. Lobbyists and corporations have no defensible place in politics.

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.
- rocqua 7y ago
  PACs. They are not direct campaign contributions, (the candidate does not get to direct how the contributions are spent). But they are money spent on re-election anyway.

mdorazio 7y ago

Notice how you said a group of concerned citizens is a lobby, not a lobbyist. The line gets crossed when you go from a group of actual human constituents collectively asking a representative for something to either a corporation asking a representative for something or a group retaining the services of a professional individual whose job it is to convince politicians of something. Lobbies are mostly ok. Lobbyists and corporations have no defensible place in politics.