5 ms·

How on the earth such lobbism is legal?

by ex3ndr 6y ago

dathinab 6y ago
Because of previously done lobbyism...
lend000 6y ago
What's the fundamental difference between a lobbyist for a cause you like "save the whales" and a cause you don't like "make noncompetes enforceable"? There will always be those acting to corrupt and change the system -- the important part is to have a system that is designed to resist corruption (with things like fundamental rights like the Bill of Rights and courts to analyze and rule on the validity of laws) and attempting to elect politicians that don't introduce legislation that goes against those laws in the first place.
- rurp 6y ago
  >What's the fundamental difference between a lobbyist for a cause you like "save the whales" and a cause you don't like "make noncompetes enforceable"? The difference is money. Lobbying is effective for groups that have a lot to spend. So for almost any pro-business issue lobbying can have a strong effect. That might be ok, but there's no similarly effective mechanism to push issues that don't result in direct profits to the people that care about them. There are countless issues that are very important and should be addressed, but that don't have any direct financial beneficiaries and so are often ignored in US politics.
jedimastert 6y ago
So this is a thought that I see, and I feel like I have a different definition of "lobbying". The lobbying that I'm aware of is just paying people to go bother Senators. What am I missing that would make that illegal?
- itsoktocry 6y ago
  Exactly. This is how legislation is passed: you send people to talk to the lawmakers about your issue and convince them to do something about it. Like everything else in this world, having money to spend helps. Of course, because we're talking about money and people and relationships, there's inherently some corruption that seeps through, but most of the laws (and lobbying) is pretty boring stuff. Without lobbying most lawmakers would have no clue about some issues. How could they?
  - fwip 6y ago
    Lawmakers could seek out experts to ask for advice, rather than the experts coming to them. They could read papers, or have their staff do so. They could send staff to talk to people about the issues they're facing.
    - itsoktocry 6y ago
      >Lawmakers could seek out experts to ask for advice, rather than the experts coming to them I guess they could spend all their time researching random problems, but lobbying helps vet important issues. They are representing a constituency, after all. And, in reality, good politicians do do their own research, and many even write bills and promote policy that they genuinely believe in (even when it agrees with lobbyists).
- fragmede 6y ago
  The nuance is in where the ethical line gets crossed for "go bother senators". Having a meeting with a senator? Entirely reasonable. How much does it cost get that meeting though? Senators are very busy, y'know, so maybe they'll agree to meet after a donation to their campaign fund. Senators are people though and they have to eat, so maybe having a lunch meeting with the senator would be okay? Paying for a reasonably priced lunch for the senator? Say $50? Each? How about a $300 lunch? At the country club? with a round of golf after? Dinner? After dinner entertainment? And what if that entertainment "happens" to be strippers and cocaine? The senator needs to get re-elected though. So in addition to political donations to their campaign directly, donations could be made to "totally definitely not coordinated" SuperPACs supporting them. That's before getting into the fact that lobbyists have no obligation to present a fair and balanced picture of the situation. It's easy to sell a narrative that doesn't reflect reality if there's no one to challenge you; you can just leave out any and all inconvenient facts. Additionally, huge corporations are able to threaten layoffs of the senator's constituents. To be clear, some of this stuff is highly regulated. Eg we couldn't bring doughnuts to a morning meeting with NASA because they're government officials and that could amount to bribery. Lobbying just has a very complex set of laws to skirt - and if you're a professional lobbyist, figuring out how to skirt those laws in order to buy influence is literally your job.
  - donarb 6y ago
    It's also important to remember that most lobbying is not taking a Senator to lunch, it's emailing/calling their staffs with information about a particular piece of legislation. Staffs of these politicians deal much more with lobbyists day to day than their bosses.
  - _-david-_ 6y ago
    >we couldn't bring doughnuts to a morning meeting with NASA because they're government officials and that could amount to bribery. Were you a government employee? If so were you in a different agency? Can NASA employees bring doughnuts for other NASA employees?
danharaj 6y ago
The boardroom and the legislature are like one room divided by a curtain.
jorblumesea 6y ago
Well if we called it by it's real name, it would be much more apparent: bribery.
skrebbel 6y ago
Personally I think the more interesting question is "where on earth is such lobbyism legal". Clearly in the US. I have the idea that in at least some European countries, it's less prevalent and definitely less public / blatant. Not entirely sure though, eg we Dutch like to think our country isn't very corrupt but somehow we just don't seem to notice when our ex ministers get cushy jobs at the bigcos they helped to deregulate. I think the US is kind of unique in how obscenely public the corruption is. Elected judges who fund their campaings with money from companies they help win trials, super PACs, the list seems endless. No wonder y'all are libertarians.
- tracker1 6y ago
  I was definitely much more communist/socialist leaning when I was younger. The more I experienced how corrupt government systems can get, the more libertarian I became... been registered LP for a long while now. I now believe that the best way to reduce government corruption is to reduce government. I also feel that government support for corporations should also be limited, and corporations should be carved out as a "non-living entity" class separate from personhood. I'm more pragmatic that the more an-cap side of things, I feel that the government should at least orchestrate essential infrastructure, and that should include internet, telecom and roads/highways. Most of that PoV is rooted in domestic security.
  - sgt101 6y ago
    what's your view on healthcare? I feel it's essential infrastructure - but is that your sense?
    - scohesc 6y ago
      I know you asked another user but figure I'd offer some input as someone who sees themselves as more libertarian in belief structure. I agree with you on healthcare needing to be essential infrastructure. However, it's a bit of a sticky, dividing part for a lot of libertarians - especially the more dedicated believers. You get the ones that are just so driven to "gub'mint don't tread on me!", and you get the ones that understand that any mindset or belief is not bulletproof in theory and/or in practice and need to build safeguards in place. In an ideal, perfect world to a lot of libertarians (again, this is subjective) - there wouldn't be a need for any government ran programs. That will never, EVER happen in my opinion. There will always still be people who just are not educated, intelligent, lucky, skillful, advantageous (whatever qualifier anyone picks to use) enough to succeed or to be able to have an acceptable standard of living independently. We need to have some sort of safety net in place. What that net is, I'm not educated enough to offer an opinion or thoughts on specifically. Rest assured that there's a LOT of libertarians that understand that "shit happens" and there should be systems in place to handle these edge cases.
dboreham 6y ago
Because the USA is a highly corrupt country, in case this wasn't previously obvious.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
otterley 6y ago
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects, among other things, the right to peaceably assemble, and the right to petition the Government for the redress of grievances. Being able to get together and ask for the Government to do something is core to the American identity; and it protects the rights of Black Lives Matter supporters as much as it protects the rights of a company to request laws be enacted or changed. (Disclaimer: I work for AWS but my opinion is my own and does not necessarily reflect the views of my employer.)

How on the earth such lobbism is legal?

by ex3ndr 6y ago

How on the earth such lobbism is legal?

dathinab 6y ago

Because of previously done lobbyism...

lend000 6y ago

What's the fundamental difference between a lobbyist for a cause you like "save the whales" and a cause you don't like "make noncompetes enforceable"? There will always be those acting to corrupt and change the system -- the important part is to have a system that is designed to resist corruption (with things like fundamental rights like the Bill of Rights and courts to analyze and rule on the validity of laws) and attempting to elect politicians that don't introduce legislation that goes against those laws in the first place.

rurp 6y ago
>What's the fundamental difference between a lobbyist for a cause you like "save the whales" and a cause you don't like "make noncompetes enforceable"? The difference is money. Lobbying is effective for groups that have a lot to spend. So for almost any pro-business issue lobbying can have a strong effect. That might be ok, but there's no similarly effective mechanism to push issues that don't result in direct profits to the people that care about them. There are countless issues that are very important and should be addressed, but that don't have any direct financial beneficiaries and so are often ignored in US politics.

jedimastert 6y ago

So this is a thought that I see, and I feel like I have a different definition of "lobbying". The lobbying that I'm aware of is just paying people to go bother Senators. What am I missing that would make that illegal?

itsoktocry 6y ago
Exactly. This is how legislation is passed: you send people to talk to the lawmakers about your issue and convince them to do something about it. Like everything else in this world, having money to spend helps. Of course, because we're talking about money and people and relationships, there's inherently some corruption that seeps through, but most of the laws (and lobbying) is pretty boring stuff. Without lobbying most lawmakers would have no clue about some issues. How could they?
- fwip 6y ago
  Lawmakers could seek out experts to ask for advice, rather than the experts coming to them. They could read papers, or have their staff do so. They could send staff to talk to people about the issues they're facing.
  - itsoktocry 6y ago
    >Lawmakers could seek out experts to ask for advice, rather than the experts coming to them I guess they could spend all their time researching random problems, but lobbying helps vet important issues. They are representing a constituency, after all. And, in reality, good politicians do do their own research, and many even write bills and promote policy that they genuinely believe in (even when it agrees with lobbyists).
fragmede 6y ago
The nuance is in where the ethical line gets crossed for "go bother senators". Having a meeting with a senator? Entirely reasonable. How much does it cost get that meeting though? Senators are very busy, y'know, so maybe they'll agree to meet after a donation to their campaign fund. Senators are people though and they have to eat, so maybe having a lunch meeting with the senator would be okay? Paying for a reasonably priced lunch for the senator? Say $50? Each? How about a $300 lunch? At the country club? with a round of golf after? Dinner? After dinner entertainment? And what if that entertainment "happens" to be strippers and cocaine? The senator needs to get re-elected though. So in addition to political donations to their campaign directly, donations could be made to "totally definitely not coordinated" SuperPACs supporting them. That's before getting into the fact that lobbyists have no obligation to present a fair and balanced picture of the situation. It's easy to sell a narrative that doesn't reflect reality if there's no one to challenge you; you can just leave out any and all inconvenient facts. Additionally, huge corporations are able to threaten layoffs of the senator's constituents. To be clear, some of this stuff is highly regulated. Eg we couldn't bring doughnuts to a morning meeting with NASA because they're government officials and that could amount to bribery. Lobbying just has a very complex set of laws to skirt - and if you're a professional lobbyist, figuring out how to skirt those laws in order to buy influence is literally your job.
- donarb 6y ago
  It's also important to remember that most lobbying is not taking a Senator to lunch, it's emailing/calling their staffs with information about a particular piece of legislation. Staffs of these politicians deal much more with lobbyists day to day than their bosses.
- _-david-_ 6y ago
  >we couldn't bring doughnuts to a morning meeting with NASA because they're government officials and that could amount to bribery. Were you a government employee? If so were you in a different agency? Can NASA employees bring doughnuts for other NASA employees?

danharaj 6y ago

The boardroom and the legislature are like one room divided by a curtain.

jorblumesea 6y ago

Well if we called it by it's real name, it would be much more apparent: bribery.

skrebbel 6y ago

Personally I think the more interesting question is "where on earth is such lobbyism legal". Clearly in the US. I have the idea that in at least some European countries, it's less prevalent and definitely less public / blatant. Not entirely sure though, eg we Dutch like to think our country isn't very corrupt but somehow we just don't seem to notice when our ex ministers get cushy jobs at the bigcos they helped to deregulate. I think the US is kind of unique in how obscenely public the corruption is. Elected judges who fund their campaings with money from companies they help win trials, super PACs, the list seems endless. No wonder y'all are libertarians.

tracker1 6y ago
I was definitely much more communist/socialist leaning when I was younger. The more I experienced how corrupt government systems can get, the more libertarian I became... been registered LP for a long while now. I now believe that the best way to reduce government corruption is to reduce government. I also feel that government support for corporations should also be limited, and corporations should be carved out as a "non-living entity" class separate from personhood. I'm more pragmatic that the more an-cap side of things, I feel that the government should at least orchestrate essential infrastructure, and that should include internet, telecom and roads/highways. Most of that PoV is rooted in domestic security.
- sgt101 6y ago
  what's your view on healthcare? I feel it's essential infrastructure - but is that your sense?
  - scohesc 6y ago
    I know you asked another user but figure I'd offer some input as someone who sees themselves as more libertarian in belief structure. I agree with you on healthcare needing to be essential infrastructure. However, it's a bit of a sticky, dividing part for a lot of libertarians - especially the more dedicated believers. You get the ones that are just so driven to "gub'mint don't tread on me!", and you get the ones that understand that any mindset or belief is not bulletproof in theory and/or in practice and need to build safeguards in place. In an ideal, perfect world to a lot of libertarians (again, this is subjective) - there wouldn't be a need for any government ran programs. That will never, EVER happen in my opinion. There will always still be people who just are not educated, intelligent, lucky, skillful, advantageous (whatever qualifier anyone picks to use) enough to succeed or to be able to have an acceptable standard of living independently. We need to have some sort of safety net in place. What that net is, I'm not educated enough to offer an opinion or thoughts on specifically. Rest assured that there's a LOT of libertarians that understand that "shit happens" and there should be systems in place to handle these edge cases.

dboreham 6y ago

Because the USA is a highly corrupt country, in case this wasn't previously obvious.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

otterley 6y ago

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects, among other things, the right to peaceably assemble, and the right to petition the Government for the redress of grievances. Being able to get together and ask for the Government to do something is core to the American identity; and it protects the rights of Black Lives Matter supporters as much as it protects the rights of a company to request laws be enacted or changed. (Disclaimer: I work for AWS but my opinion is my own and does not necessarily reflect the views of my employer.)