10 ms·

If we'd ban lobbying we wouldn't have to wait for one business to show up from somewhere else than the depths of depravity. If we'd ban lobbying we could have

• h_anna_h 6y ago
  I think that you are being too optimistic here.
• jimbokun 6y ago
  Sure, but what odds do you give to that happening in the near future?
• ch4s3 6y ago
  How do you practically ban lobbying without removing the ability of private citizens to directly interact with the legislature? There are good reasons to allow groups of people to get together and pay someone to go hassle congress on their behalf. Regular people are busy with their own lives after all, and most of them live far away from Washington. And sometimes you want to complain to a representative from outside of you own district, because they're sponsoring legislation that would hurt you, or blocking legislation that would help you.
  • Judgmentality 6y ago
    You could limit the amount of money you can make via lobbying. If it was illegal to make more than $1 MM a year through lobbying, suddenly the playing field would be significantly more level. If a corporation can pay you $1 MM and a group of citizens can pay you the same, suddenly you care more about the message than the receipt. And the majority of ultra-rich lobbyists will do something else, because that's not nearly enough money to interest them. I'm not a fan of limiting salaries in general and I do not believe this is a good solution, but I believe it's likely to be better than the current situation. This is just me spitballing on a whim, having put approximately 60 seconds of thought into a solution. Hopefully people more informed will reply with better solutions or an informed explanation of what's wrong with my idea.
  • dstick 6y ago
    He forgot “by companies”. Your point is valid. It should be banned for companies. Either directly or indirectly.
  • mindslight 6y ago
    You write the laws to apply to companies but not private citizens. A major owner of a pharma company could still lobby privately as themselves, but at least they'd be paying taxes on that expense rather than having it hidden as a corporate writeoff. (And before anyone chimes in with "but corporations are just groups of private citizens" - they're explicitly not. Corporations are fundamentally defined by having a charter from the government to reduce the owners' liability, and thus we would expect them to incur additional regulations)
    • ch4s3 6y ago
      I imagine CEOs would just lobby privately and in person then, but pay a team to do all of the other leg work. This is trickier issue than people popularly imagine. Influencing the leaders of a global super power is incredibly valuable, and lots of people want to do it for a lot of reasons. In your proposal, would you ban NGOs, non-profits, and unions from lobbying? Why or why not?
      • mindslight 6y ago
        If the CEO were paid an extra $10M salary so they could turn around and personally spend it on a lobbying firm, that would at least reduce the efficiency of said lobbying by 37%. The biggest issue is the complete lack of reporting, and anything that pushes the money flows more into the open (your hypothetical CEO is then personally responsible) is a step forward. Take a look at the stark difference between campaign finance reporting for individual candidates, and everything else. Your last bit is a loaded question. If an entity's business is lobbying, then obviously they can engage in lobbying. But they could only be funded by individuals, not companies whose business is other-than-lobbying.
        • ch4s3 6y ago
          My point is that NGOs, non-profits, unions, and other voluntary groups aren’t primarily about lobbying but may want to increase their members’ voice by lobbying, e.g. environmental groups.
  • mikem170 6y ago
    We could start by banning political campaign funding from corporations and unions. I took a look at a handful of western democracies and they all either banned or drastically curtailed this. People need to be in control of their government, and that includes campaign funding.
• tolbish 6y ago
  Universal health care may be a more pragmatic approach than "ban lobbying", IMO.
• geodel 6y ago
  Huh, I have seen countries where lobbying is illegal but they are vastly more corrupt than US. Finding one scapegoat and blaming all problems to it seems cartoonish level simplistic.
  • hh3k0 6y ago
    It's almost like this isn't an either/or type of situation where a nation either has lobbying banned or suffers from corruption. (And absolutely no one other than you has made this oversimplification in this comment chain.)
• HenryBemis 6y ago
  "Lobbying" is legitimising bribes from corporations politicians. It is as simple as that. If USA wants to change the game (they don't) they can ban all corporate donations (aka legalized bribing), allow only donations by individuals, and then impose/enforce a limit of $10-25-50k per person (or something reasonable). Anyone playing tricks to game that rule get a penalty of x20 the excessive amount donated (e.g. via others). Also put all donations in public record. As simple as that. It makes no sense to me that you (USA) spent $14bn [0] on this election. [0]: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/28/2020-election-spending-to-hit-nearly-14-billion-a-record.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/28/2020-election-spending-to-hi...
  • h_anna_h 6y ago
    Should foundations like the EFF and FSF not be allowed to lobby?
    • HenryBemis 6y ago
      If by "Lobby" you mean bring their arguments forward in a discussion, well that's the objective of freedom and democracy (you speak - you are heard - majority decides). If you mean that EFF will donate $5m which will inadvertently alter what logic dictates and demands.. then yes block EFF too from bribing politicians and political parties in the guise of "lobbying".
      • h_anna_h 6y ago
        What about EFF organizing a $5m worth campaign for a pro-privacy advocate?