3 ms·

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

by 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.
      - mindslight 6y ago
        I did get your point. The obvious solution is to split into two entities, one that does the lobbying and can only accept personal dollars and one that accepts corporate donations and does no lobbying. This is the third non-issue you've brought up as if it were some kind of blocker. Prohibiting corporations from donating to individual campaigns is something that is already done. It just needs to be expanded to all lobbying.
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.

by ch4s3 6y ago

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.
    - mindslight 6y ago
      I did get your point. The obvious solution is to split into two entities, one that does the lobbying and can only accept personal dollars and one that accepts corporate donations and does no lobbying. This is the third non-issue you've brought up as if it were some kind of blocker. Prohibiting corporations from donating to individual campaigns is something that is already done. It just needs to be expanded to all lobbying.

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.