6 ms·

Why is lobbyism not a solved problem? Why is it not yet more scrutinized than it should be? Peace and freedom in all western countries is at stake because there

by meibo 6y ago

Why is lobbyism not a solved problem? Why is it not yet more scrutinized than it should be? Peace and freedom in all western countries is at stake because there is no accountability. Is money that powerful? What else can we do than to vote carefully?

ziftface 6y ago
The only people in a position to reduce corruption have an interest in it. It's a story as old as time.
1MachineElf 6y ago
Maybe it's just my own ignorance, but in the EU context, I don't understand the difference between a company "lobbying" an agency like Frontex versus a company having a "government sales team" doing "customer outreach" to Frontex?
- PeterisP 6y ago
  The usual definition of lobbying involves meetings with various interested 'stakeholders' who are not aiming for a vendor/customer relationship; sales meetings and tenders for goods or services are something separate than someone getting their word in about policy. One other thing that surprised me in this article is the inclusion of "representatives of EU border control agencies to these meetings, but also international organizations such as Interpol, Europol and the OSCE, as well as representatives from countries known for their brutal border control policies" - I would definitely consider meetings with relevant state institutions from EU countries (which are partners of Frontex) and non-EU countries (which are generally doing equivalent functions as Frontex) as something entirely distinct from lobbying.
  - 1MachineElf 6y ago
    In the US, it would have better fit the definition of lobbying if Frontex had gone the elected representatives and pushed them for business. Having webinars and inviting potential government customers is sounds more like what Frontex is doing, and regardless of the ramifications, it's considered standard practice for government sales in US.
    - PeterisP 6y ago
      Frontex is not looking for government customers, it's (another) government agency - it's the EU-wide European border and coast guard agency that is cooperating/coordinating with all the border control agencies of the individual states. So meeting with these border control agencies is, like, one of the tasks the government has explicitly assigned to them.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bberenberg 6y ago
Because lobbying is currently a solution, not a problem. While we see that it causes problems, formal lobbying structures were set up specifically so that we can see what is happening. Without the framework we have today, it happens anyways but more in backrooms with less oversight. For example, if instead of formal meetings where FOI requests can get access to documents like listed on the website, this was all done at someones home at a private dinner would we the general public be better off? To be clear, I agree that we need to improve the situation, however ignoring that lobbying is better than what came before it isn't particularly helpful. Influence is a core component of social power structures. You can't legislate it away.
- sdoering 6y ago
  As discussed in the Frontex papers, the problem here is, that Frontex does not even comply with EU lobbying regulations. They go around them as if these just don't apply to them. So even if there are regulations in place, as long as institutions not facing dire consequences for noncompliance, the rational thing to do as a member of such an institution is to ignore said regulations. As long as the negative consequences of your actions are minimal at best while some form of positive consequences are very likely, why comply with regulations.
  - bberenberg 6y ago
    I absolutely agree. And we need to do better in terms of enforcement. What I was trying to convey was that by formally allowing lobbying it gives us more power to do something about it. Same reasoning for why drug legalization works better than prohibition.
    - sdoering 6y ago
      Absolutely. And the lobby register is a step in the right direction. Albeit be it a small one. More steps need to follow and strong enforcement.
jeofken 6y ago
Governments are violent monopolistic organisations, and lobbying is a natural reaction to this. No morality or value creation is to be found anywhere near it.
- xvedejas 6y ago
  Some governments manage to be less violent than others. I'm not sure that that affects the degree to which lobbying works.
  - jeofken 6y ago
    The same is true for abusive parents or partners - some just spank. Lobbying in that metaphor is the kid in the family with the most clout convincing the parent they should spank another sibling instead
- brnt 6y ago
  Democratic goverment is the best way the people have at organising their society. Devolving power to organisations that by their nature represent fewer than the whole population and aren't under any form of democratic control are nowhere near what we should want. Unless you're a rich billionaire who can afford lobbyists of course.
  - jeofken 6y ago
    > Democratic goverment is the best way the people have at organising their society. Is this a fact? States are monopolistic armed organisations, and democratic states mean that who to point this violent threat at is determined by popular vote - the mob decides. My claim is that this does not remove the moral evil of using violent threat to get your will. Re: your last paragraph: lobbying exists just because of the state - if you can convince those closest to the trigger who to use force against and who to leave alone, you can succeed at your competitors cost. It is a natural reaction to lobby, like a child of a violent family may convince the parent to spank a sibling instead
    - 6y ago

by meibo 6y ago

ziftface 6y ago

The only people in a position to reduce corruption have an interest in it. It's a story as old as time.

1MachineElf 6y ago

Maybe it's just my own ignorance, but in the EU context, I don't understand the difference between a company "lobbying" an agency like Frontex versus a company having a "government sales team" doing "customer outreach" to Frontex?

PeterisP 6y ago
The usual definition of lobbying involves meetings with various interested 'stakeholders' who are not aiming for a vendor/customer relationship; sales meetings and tenders for goods or services are something separate than someone getting their word in about policy. One other thing that surprised me in this article is the inclusion of "representatives of EU border control agencies to these meetings, but also international organizations such as Interpol, Europol and the OSCE, as well as representatives from countries known for their brutal border control policies" - I would definitely consider meetings with relevant state institutions from EU countries (which are partners of Frontex) and non-EU countries (which are generally doing equivalent functions as Frontex) as something entirely distinct from lobbying.
- 1MachineElf 6y ago
  In the US, it would have better fit the definition of lobbying if Frontex had gone the elected representatives and pushed them for business. Having webinars and inviting potential government customers is sounds more like what Frontex is doing, and regardless of the ramifications, it's considered standard practice for government sales in US.
  - PeterisP 6y ago
    Frontex is not looking for government customers, it's (another) government agency - it's the EU-wide European border and coast guard agency that is cooperating/coordinating with all the border control agencies of the individual states. So meeting with these border control agencies is, like, one of the tasks the government has explicitly assigned to them.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

bberenberg 6y ago

Because lobbying is currently a solution, not a problem. While we see that it causes problems, formal lobbying structures were set up specifically so that we can see what is happening. Without the framework we have today, it happens anyways but more in backrooms with less oversight. For example, if instead of formal meetings where FOI requests can get access to documents like listed on the website, this was all done at someones home at a private dinner would we the general public be better off? To be clear, I agree that we need to improve the situation, however ignoring that lobbying is better than what came before it isn't particularly helpful. Influence is a core component of social power structures. You can't legislate it away.

sdoering 6y ago
As discussed in the Frontex papers, the problem here is, that Frontex does not even comply with EU lobbying regulations. They go around them as if these just don't apply to them. So even if there are regulations in place, as long as institutions not facing dire consequences for noncompliance, the rational thing to do as a member of such an institution is to ignore said regulations. As long as the negative consequences of your actions are minimal at best while some form of positive consequences are very likely, why comply with regulations.
- bberenberg 6y ago
  I absolutely agree. And we need to do better in terms of enforcement. What I was trying to convey was that by formally allowing lobbying it gives us more power to do something about it. Same reasoning for why drug legalization works better than prohibition.
  - sdoering 6y ago
    Absolutely. And the lobby register is a step in the right direction. Albeit be it a small one. More steps need to follow and strong enforcement.

jeofken 6y ago

Governments are violent monopolistic organisations, and lobbying is a natural reaction to this. No morality or value creation is to be found anywhere near it.

xvedejas 6y ago
Some governments manage to be less violent than others. I'm not sure that that affects the degree to which lobbying works.
- jeofken 6y ago
  The same is true for abusive parents or partners - some just spank. Lobbying in that metaphor is the kid in the family with the most clout convincing the parent they should spank another sibling instead
brnt 6y ago
Democratic goverment is the best way the people have at organising their society. Devolving power to organisations that by their nature represent fewer than the whole population and aren't under any form of democratic control are nowhere near what we should want. Unless you're a rich billionaire who can afford lobbyists of course.
- jeofken 6y ago
  > Democratic goverment is the best way the people have at organising their society. Is this a fact? States are monopolistic armed organisations, and democratic states mean that who to point this violent threat at is determined by popular vote - the mob decides. My claim is that this does not remove the moral evil of using violent threat to get your will. Re: your last paragraph: lobbying exists just because of the state - if you can convince those closest to the trigger who to use force against and who to leave alone, you can succeed at your competitors cost. It is a natural reaction to lobby, like a child of a violent family may convince the parent to spank a sibling instead
  - 6y ago