5 ms·

As someone who doesn't live in the US, I should tell people here that legalizing "bad" actions can be a net good. The lobbying market is big, and you can't exti

by Siira 6y ago

As someone who doesn't live in the US, I should tell people here that legalizing "bad" actions can be a net good. The lobbying market is big, and you can't extinguish it; You can only make it a black market. This makes the laws more suited to the interests of "shady elites." Consider that Google serves the whole world a very valuable service; What do the corrupt beneficiaries of most other countries do? They have near zero output.

vlovich123 6y ago
Yes and that doesn't mean that legalizing it carte blanche is a net good either. There are important pieces of legislation missing around controlling how and when politician's can fundraise. Most normal countries legalize lobbying & restrict electioneering to a ~3 month window prior to an election. Additionally, they usually line up election cycles so that you're only having an election every 4 years on all parts of government. America has no such restrictions. Members of Congress & the President start running & fundraising now ~2 years before an election (& unofficially before that). For the House of Representatives, that means members are in an electioneering & fundraising mode non-stop. The staggered election cycle in the Senate means that a large portion of the Senate is constantly campaigning further making focusing on the act of governing difficult. Fixing these issues doesn't solve all problems obviously but making no reforms isn't going to improve things either.
- Siira 6y ago
  I agree.
notherthrowaway 6y ago
Lobbying as “too big to fail” is an interesting argument, although your “black market” argument could be made for pretty much any law. On the other hand, we know that legislation and court decisions have a large impact because we’ve witnessed the results of McCain/Feingold and Citizens United. At the same time, we can observe how other democracies manage the same issue.
- inglor_cz 6y ago
  “black market” argument could be made for pretty much any law Not the OP, but ... murder or genocide is very clearly a crime, while lobbying starts with "talking to an elected official about laws that concern you", which is sorta normal in democracy, the elected officials should be available to talk. It only becomes problematic if it is overdone or done too secretively. I think that a good and transparent lobby register is probably more useful than outright ban; at least an external observer can glean some information from it.
  - notherthrowaway 6y ago
    We have made murder illegal and there is a “murder for hire” black market. How does that refute my point?
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    > while lobbying starts with "talking to an elected official about laws that concern you" For the purposes of discussing government corruption, "lobbying" mean "talking to an elected official about laws that concern you, with the implication that their response will affect how much and in what direction you use money to pervert the electoral process". (Obviously, corporations generally don't actually explicitly say that part, because plausible deniablity.)
craftinator 6y ago
What you describe is more the contrapositive of 'legalizing "bad" actions can be a net good.', in that it's "illegalizing 'bad' actions can be a net bad". Lobbying is already legal, and is mostly a bad action; but if we make it illegal, it will create a black market that isn't regulated. It's the same problem (one of many) that the "War on Drugs" had, in that any activity that's illegal tends to be unregulatable. It also attracts to the market for people who are already doing illegal things. I think the root of the problem is that politics in the US (and in most other places) is a popularity contest; it attracts people who are charming, lie effectively, and who's goal is to be popular. They, of course, have other goals too, but having the accolades of the represented is a requirement, and people that seek that status end up drawn towards politics.

by Siira 6y ago

vlovich123 6y ago

Yes and that doesn't mean that legalizing it carte blanche is a net good either. There are important pieces of legislation missing around controlling how and when politician's can fundraise. Most normal countries legalize lobbying & restrict electioneering to a ~3 month window prior to an election. Additionally, they usually line up election cycles so that you're only having an election every 4 years on all parts of government. America has no such restrictions. Members of Congress & the President start running & fundraising now ~2 years before an election (& unofficially before that). For the House of Representatives, that means members are in an electioneering & fundraising mode non-stop. The staggered election cycle in the Senate means that a large portion of the Senate is constantly campaigning further making focusing on the act of governing difficult. Fixing these issues doesn't solve all problems obviously but making no reforms isn't going to improve things either.

Siira 6y ago
I agree.

notherthrowaway 6y ago

Lobbying as “too big to fail” is an interesting argument, although your “black market” argument could be made for pretty much any law. On the other hand, we know that legislation and court decisions have a large impact because we’ve witnessed the results of McCain/Feingold and Citizens United. At the same time, we can observe how other democracies manage the same issue.

inglor_cz 6y ago
“black market” argument could be made for pretty much any law Not the OP, but ... murder or genocide is very clearly a crime, while lobbying starts with "talking to an elected official about laws that concern you", which is sorta normal in democracy, the elected officials should be available to talk. It only becomes problematic if it is overdone or done too secretively. I think that a good and transparent lobby register is probably more useful than outright ban; at least an external observer can glean some information from it.
- notherthrowaway 6y ago
  We have made murder illegal and there is a “murder for hire” black market. How does that refute my point?
- a1369209993 6y ago
  > while lobbying starts with "talking to an elected official about laws that concern you" For the purposes of discussing government corruption, "lobbying" mean "talking to an elected official about laws that concern you, with the implication that their response will affect how much and in what direction you use money to pervert the electoral process". (Obviously, corporations generally don't actually explicitly say that part, because plausible deniablity.)

craftinator 6y ago

What you describe is more the contrapositive of 'legalizing "bad" actions can be a net good.', in that it's "illegalizing 'bad' actions can be a net bad". Lobbying is already legal, and is mostly a bad action; but if we make it illegal, it will create a black market that isn't regulated. It's the same problem (one of many) that the "War on Drugs" had, in that any activity that's illegal tends to be unregulatable. It also attracts to the market for people who are already doing illegal things. I think the root of the problem is that politics in the US (and in most other places) is a popularity contest; it attracts people who are charming, lie effectively, and who's goal is to be popular. They, of course, have other goals too, but having the accolades of the represented is a requirement, and people that seek that status end up drawn towards politics.