6 ms·

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'

by 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.
    - supernova87a 6y ago
      This is very true. Lobbying, for its many faults, helps lawmakers (who are understaffed and generally underresourced) filter and figure out which opinions are worth listening to. Even the most well-intentioned / good ideas have trouble being advocated by one smart person in this system. You need an organization to attach to that gives you credibility. Not saying that this is the right way -- and certainly often the less privileged opinions get short shrift in this system. A good government/political structure would give lawmakers effective ways to not have to have to rely on lobbyists. But it is the system that has arisen in the absence of that.
  - otterley 6y ago
    It's not legal to pay off political leaders in the U.S. You can spend nearly as much as you want on lobbyists and campaigning, but the money has to stay with the lobbyists and the campaign organizations. And direct contributions by individuals are capped at relatively low levels. In fact, the law is so strict in the U.S. that you can't even bribe foreign leaders either (see the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act).
  - supernova87a 6y ago
    At least here it has to be reported, registered, and subject to scrutiny.
- tetrometal 6y ago
  IMO the problem is that the government meddles with the market to begin with. I know I'm in the minority, but I believe a clean separation of government and market would remove the incentive for regulatory capture without damaging free speech rights.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > I know I'm in the minority, but I believe a clean separation of government and market would remove the incentive for regulatory capture without damaging free speech rights. That's myopic though. It's true your "clean separation" would "solve" the problem of regulatory capture, but it would simultaneously re-introduce the problems that regulation has successfully solved [1]. Society is a dynamic system of tradeoffs; solutions to societal problems that are tidy, good, and stable are ever-tempting chimeras. [1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/cuyahoga-river-caught-fire-least-dozen-times-no-one-cared-until-1969-180972444/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/cuyahoga-river-caught...
controversy 6y ago
No. Amazon has a view of what it thinks is best for the US. That view is informed by its own self interest. Others have a view of what they think is best for the US. Their views are informed by their own self interest. Ultimately when a view does not align with the law of the land, the holder of the view can a) comply, b) comply and seek to redress their issues, or c) fail to comply. Amazon, in the speech above, says it will comply. There is nothing hypocritical in wanting a voice in a policy decision.
- slg 6y ago
  >Amazon has a view of what it thinks is best for the US. That view is informed by its own self interest. This doesn't follow. The argument above is that Amazon is a amoral corporation that seeks to make money to the extent that the law allows. Amazon is not considering what is in the best interest of the country. It is acting in the best interest of Amazon.
  - controversy 6y ago
    Those are not necessarily at odds. Amazon does not want to collapse the US. If it did, it would collapse too.
Simulacra 6y ago
Don’t forget how he treats employees. If just 1/3 of what was written in The Everything Store is true, it paints a damning portrait of its ceo.
TheSoftwareGuy 6y ago
If the lobbying they do is unfair, then they should change the rules around lobbying
- yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
  That sounds like it's going to get really messy really fast, especially with the 1st amendment in play. (Not that we shouldn't try, mind, just that it's not an easy thing to fix)
  - ohazi 6y ago
    It has nothing to do with the first amendment. Money isn't actually speech -- bribery is illegal, after all. The legislators who have the ability to change the rules around lobbying are at the receiving end of millions of lobbying dollars, and they don't want the money firehose to stop.
- paulgb 6y ago
  > If the lobbying they do is unfair, then they should change the rules around lobbying Who is "they"? Plenty of people do want to reduce the amount of money in US politics, but they come up against the same money that's behind the lobbying in the first place.
  - RobRivera 6y ago
    Congress, via their voters
    - paulgb 6y ago
      This is a bit like the "stop hitting yourself" game that kids play. If you ask voters whether they think there is too much money in politics, they overwhelming say there is[1]. 1. https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2091162/poll-may-28-31.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2091... see q32
- CameronNemo 6y ago
ac29 6y ago
I dont think so - that's like saying that if you don't donate money to the US treasury, you can't criticize taxes for being too low.
eikenberry 6y ago
I'd say no because lobbying the government for laws that favor you is within the laws. When one of the rules says you get to bribe those who make up the rules of course you'll get some messed up rules. But it isn't hypocritical.
jb775 6y ago
He's basically saying there's profit-maximizing loopholes all over the place, and it's not his fault they exist...which is true. The real issue is that politicians are shooting themselves in the foot career-wise if they try to close these loopholes. We need to reduce the incentives politicians get from action or inaction depending on chummy relationships with big business. A good start would be more rules around lobbyist relationships, and figuring out how to close the revolving door where politicians are given lucrative jobs/consultancies/speaking-fees/etc by these businesses after leaving office.
- supernova87a 6y ago
  I have the idea that if the money = free speech route is closed off to being solved by SCOTUS, the next best thing we could advocate for happening is to have limits on the number and size of corporations. There's nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of that. And Congress should do it before corporations are so powerful they can no longer escape their grasp.

by slg 6y ago

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.
  - supernova87a 6y ago
    This is very true. Lobbying, for its many faults, helps lawmakers (who are understaffed and generally underresourced) filter and figure out which opinions are worth listening to. Even the most well-intentioned / good ideas have trouble being advocated by one smart person in this system. You need an organization to attach to that gives you credibility. Not saying that this is the right way -- and certainly often the less privileged opinions get short shrift in this system. A good government/political structure would give lawmakers effective ways to not have to have to rely on lobbyists. But it is the system that has arisen in the absence of that.
- otterley 6y ago
  It's not legal to pay off political leaders in the U.S. You can spend nearly as much as you want on lobbyists and campaigning, but the money has to stay with the lobbyists and the campaign organizations. And direct contributions by individuals are capped at relatively low levels. In fact, the law is so strict in the U.S. that you can't even bribe foreign leaders either (see the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act).
- supernova87a 6y ago
  At least here it has to be reported, registered, and subject to scrutiny.
tetrometal 6y ago
IMO the problem is that the government meddles with the market to begin with. I know I'm in the minority, but I believe a clean separation of government and market would remove the incentive for regulatory capture without damaging free speech rights.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > I know I'm in the minority, but I believe a clean separation of government and market would remove the incentive for regulatory capture without damaging free speech rights. That's myopic though. It's true your "clean separation" would "solve" the problem of regulatory capture, but it would simultaneously re-introduce the problems that regulation has successfully solved [1]. Society is a dynamic system of tradeoffs; solutions to societal problems that are tidy, good, and stable are ever-tempting chimeras. [1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/cuyahoga-river-caught-fire-least-dozen-times-no-one-cared-until-1969-180972444/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/cuyahoga-river-caught...

controversy 6y ago

No. Amazon has a view of what it thinks is best for the US. That view is informed by its own self interest. Others have a view of what they think is best for the US. Their views are informed by their own self interest. Ultimately when a view does not align with the law of the land, the holder of the view can a) comply, b) comply and seek to redress their issues, or c) fail to comply. Amazon, in the speech above, says it will comply. There is nothing hypocritical in wanting a voice in a policy decision.

slg 6y ago
>Amazon has a view of what it thinks is best for the US. That view is informed by its own self interest. This doesn't follow. The argument above is that Amazon is a amoral corporation that seeks to make money to the extent that the law allows. Amazon is not considering what is in the best interest of the country. It is acting in the best interest of Amazon.
- controversy 6y ago
  Those are not necessarily at odds. Amazon does not want to collapse the US. If it did, it would collapse too.

Simulacra 6y ago

Don’t forget how he treats employees. If just 1/3 of what was written in The Everything Store is true, it paints a damning portrait of its ceo.

TheSoftwareGuy 6y ago

If the lobbying they do is unfair, then they should change the rules around lobbying

yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
That sounds like it's going to get really messy really fast, especially with the 1st amendment in play. (Not that we shouldn't try, mind, just that it's not an easy thing to fix)
- ohazi 6y ago
  It has nothing to do with the first amendment. Money isn't actually speech -- bribery is illegal, after all. The legislators who have the ability to change the rules around lobbying are at the receiving end of millions of lobbying dollars, and they don't want the money firehose to stop.
paulgb 6y ago
> If the lobbying they do is unfair, then they should change the rules around lobbying Who is "they"? Plenty of people do want to reduce the amount of money in US politics, but they come up against the same money that's behind the lobbying in the first place.
- RobRivera 6y ago
  Congress, via their voters
  - paulgb 6y ago
    This is a bit like the "stop hitting yourself" game that kids play. If you ask voters whether they think there is too much money in politics, they overwhelming say there is[1]. 1. https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2091162/poll-may-28-31.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2091... see q32
CameronNemo 6y ago

ac29 6y ago

I dont think so - that's like saying that if you don't donate money to the US treasury, you can't criticize taxes for being too low.

eikenberry 6y ago

I'd say no because lobbying the government for laws that favor you is within the laws. When one of the rules says you get to bribe those who make up the rules of course you'll get some messed up rules. But it isn't hypocritical.

jb775 6y ago

He's basically saying there's profit-maximizing loopholes all over the place, and it's not his fault they exist...which is true. The real issue is that politicians are shooting themselves in the foot career-wise if they try to close these loopholes. We need to reduce the incentives politicians get from action or inaction depending on chummy relationships with big business. A good start would be more rules around lobbyist relationships, and figuring out how to close the revolving door where politicians are given lucrative jobs/consultancies/speaking-fees/etc by these businesses after leaving office.

supernova87a 6y ago
I have the idea that if the money = free speech route is closed off to being solved by SCOTUS, the next best thing we could advocate for happening is to have limits on the number and size of corporations. There's nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of that. And Congress should do it before corporations are so powerful they can no longer escape their grasp.