6 ms·

I know that he (and others in positions like CEO in such industries) cannot say it, but I would be glad to hear him say: "Representatives, Amazon is a company

I know that he (and others in positions like CEO in such industries) cannot say it, but I would be glad to hear him say: "Representatives, Amazon is a company focused on innovation, efficiency, and getting the best and most out of people, and giving the best and most to people, wherever it can. Tech allows us to tap into economies of scale, create new products and give consumers choices never seen before, squeeze out waste in ways that were not possible up to now, and create net benefit for people in this country. Each one of you can probably personally think of how Amazon technology has improved the lives of yourselves and people you know. We seek to do this as far as the law allows us to do, and other companies do that as well. We operate within the rules placed on us by the legislatures of this country and its states. As you know, sometimes even under fair laws, some people will lose out compared to others. Innovation comes with risk and change -- that's an unavoidable consequence of progress. And technology has been doing this for hundreds of years. But that's what laws are meant to set the boundaries of, based on people like you determining how best to create those rules. If this body is concerned with what we are doing within the laws, it should change those laws based on the best interests of this country and its people. And Amazon will follow those laws. We want that clarity, and want to follow our responsibilities under the law. It's your responsibility to set out those laws. Amazon welcomes performing our responsibilities to American consumers, and we invite you to do the same to the people you are responsible to."

ceejayoz 6y ago
> If this body is concerned with what we are doing within the laws, it should change those laws based on the best interests of this country and its people. And Amazon will follow those laws. Left unsaid here would be: "We will quietly but effectively work behind the scenes to prevent them from ever becoming laws."
slg 6y ago
Isn't it hypocritical to make a comment like this while also lobbying the government for laws that favor your business? "I'm just playing by the rules" shouldn't be a valid defense when you are actively taking a role in deciding those rules.
- pound 6y ago
  but maybe problem here is in that corrupted thing called lobbying is allowed in the very first place.. I don't see how legal buying politicians this way is different from illegal corruption.
  - slg 6y ago
    I agree, but lobbying is a free speech issue and good luck getting Americans to agree on any amendment let alone one that reduces free speech.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - harshalizee 6y ago
    Yeah, as an immigrant in the US, I still can't wrap my head around it. I originate from a country with rampant corruption amongst beauracrats and politician. The most common, that's always in the news, is one where the wealthy pay off political leaders to influence policies. But in the US, it's just legal!
    - rayiner 6y ago
      I’m also from a country where corruption is common. There, it means giving some official money to exercise discretion in your favor. “Lobbying,“ for the most part, means giving some staffer a PowerPoint presentation.
    - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
      > I still can't wrap my head around it Pick something you’re knowledgeable about. Uniquely knowledgeable. Now imagine the Congress is writing legislation on it. Would you think your views might be helpful? Let’s say you and a few other people are in the same position. Travelling to D.C. isn’t free, so you decide to--as a group--reimburse the expenses of the person who travels. Would this be unfair? Scale that up to a full-time job, as an explainer of specific things to lawmakers, and lobbying makes sense. Barring lobbying would mean barring people knowledgeable about specific topics from organising to inform lawmakers. That applies to large companies as much as to the Sierra Club. The trouble is in campaign contributions, post-service jobs and e.g. fancy dinners. These are closer to, or overtly, bribery. Democracy can’t exist without organisation and education of lawmakers, and that means it requires lobbying. Democracy also cannot survive in the presence of chronic bribery. These aims aren't mutually exclusive.
pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
"If this body is concerned with what we are doing with the laws, it should change those laws based on the best interests of this country and its people;" "however, this body should also note that Amazon will seek to exert control over the legislative process to ensure that Amazon's best interests are represented to the maximum extent that our influence and lobbying budget will allow,^1 even if those interests conflict with the best interests of this country and its people." 1. We spent $16,790,000 in 2019. https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=2019&id=D000023883 https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary... I own the Washington Post. I am considered by Forbes, among others, to be the world's wealthiest billionaire. I am also a registered voter in this country.
- ac29 6y ago
  That's a reasonably fair criticism, but Congress has the power to outlaw such lobbying.
  - AlchemistCamp 6y ago
    It's principal-agent problems all the way down.
  - otterley 6y ago
    Congress has some power to outlaw corruption (or the perception thereof), but not lobbying per se. Restrictions on donations to political campaigns have been upheld in the past, but those tend to be direct money donations to candidates. Handing over money directly to a candidate is one thing, but the Courts have been a little more hesitant to uphold restrictions on lobbying or political speech -- and the spending of money to do it -- if it's being spent by or given to a third party not directly connected to the Government. The hesitancy is most recently exemplified in the Citizen's United case that is of significant controversy.
    - supernova87a 6y ago
      Sometimes I think that Congress had better think ahead to save its own skin, propose amendments to the Constitution about limits on corporations, before they lose all power to them and can no longer escape their grasp.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
xiler 6y ago
> We seek to do this as far as the law allows us to do, and other companies do that as well. We operate within the rules placed on us by the legislatures of this country and its states. Sure, but this is an antitrust hearing and trusts aren't really legal in the US.

ceejayoz 6y ago

> If this body is concerned with what we are doing within the laws, it should change those laws based on the best interests of this country and its people. And Amazon will follow those laws. Left unsaid here would be: "We will quietly but effectively work behind the scenes to prevent them from ever becoming laws."

slg 6y ago

Isn't it hypocritical to make a comment like this while also lobbying the government for laws that favor your business? "I'm just playing by the rules" shouldn't be a valid defense when you are actively taking a role in deciding those rules.

pound 6y ago
but maybe problem here is in that corrupted thing called lobbying is allowed in the very first place.. I don't see how legal buying politicians this way is different from illegal corruption.
- slg 6y ago
  I agree, but lobbying is a free speech issue and good luck getting Americans to agree on any amendment let alone one that reduces free speech.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- harshalizee 6y ago
  Yeah, as an immigrant in the US, I still can't wrap my head around it. I originate from a country with rampant corruption amongst beauracrats and politician. The most common, that's always in the news, is one where the wealthy pay off political leaders to influence policies. But in the US, it's just legal!
  - rayiner 6y ago
    I’m also from a country where corruption is common. There, it means giving some official money to exercise discretion in your favor. “Lobbying,“ for the most part, means giving some staffer a PowerPoint presentation.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > I still can't wrap my head around it Pick something you’re knowledgeable about. Uniquely knowledgeable. Now imagine the Congress is writing legislation on it. Would you think your views might be helpful? Let’s say you and a few other people are in the same position. Travelling to D.C. isn’t free, so you decide to--as a group--reimburse the expenses of the person who travels. Would this be unfair? Scale that up to a full-time job, as an explainer of specific things to lawmakers, and lobbying makes sense. Barring lobbying would mean barring people knowledgeable about specific topics from organising to inform lawmakers. That applies to large companies as much as to the Sierra Club. The trouble is in campaign contributions, post-service jobs and e.g. fancy dinners. These are closer to, or overtly, bribery. Democracy can’t exist without organisation and education of lawmakers, and that means it requires lobbying. Democracy also cannot survive in the presence of chronic bribery. These aims aren't mutually exclusive.

pwdisswordfish2 6y ago

"If this body is concerned with what we are doing with the laws, it should change those laws based on the best interests of this country and its people;" "however, this body should also note that Amazon will seek to exert control over the legislative process to ensure that Amazon's best interests are represented to the maximum extent that our influence and lobbying budget will allow,^1 even if those interests conflict with the best interests of this country and its people." 1. We spent $16,790,000 in 2019. https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=2019&id=D000023883 https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary... I own the Washington Post. I am considered by Forbes, among others, to be the world's wealthiest billionaire. I am also a registered voter in this country.

ac29 6y ago
That's a reasonably fair criticism, but Congress has the power to outlaw such lobbying.
- AlchemistCamp 6y ago
  It's principal-agent problems all the way down.
- otterley 6y ago
  Congress has some power to outlaw corruption (or the perception thereof), but not lobbying per se. Restrictions on donations to political campaigns have been upheld in the past, but those tend to be direct money donations to candidates. Handing over money directly to a candidate is one thing, but the Courts have been a little more hesitant to uphold restrictions on lobbying or political speech -- and the spending of money to do it -- if it's being spent by or given to a third party not directly connected to the Government. The hesitancy is most recently exemplified in the Citizen's United case that is of significant controversy.
  - supernova87a 6y ago
    Sometimes I think that Congress had better think ahead to save its own skin, propose amendments to the Constitution about limits on corporations, before they lose all power to them and can no longer escape their grasp.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

xiler 6y ago

> We seek to do this as far as the law allows us to do, and other companies do that as well. We operate within the rules placed on us by the legislatures of this country and its states. Sure, but this is an antitrust hearing and trusts aren't really legal in the US.