5 ms·

This misses the actual mechanism by which political corruption works. Lobbying is merely any person going in to press their interests with their representatives

This misses the actual mechanism by which political corruption works. Lobbying is merely any person going in to press their interests with their representatives. Where large, monied interests rig the game is because they run election campaigns and implant narratives in the media. In other words, the mechanism by which lobbyists get their way is by weaponizing regular citizens into voting in their interests. It's marketing and mass manipulation rather than the "quid pro quo" corruption people imagine it is.

fossuser 6y ago
Yeah - I basically agree with this framing. I think Lessig's talk is the best summary of this: https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_... Lobbying itself is fine - we want experts with deep domain expertise interacting with law makers. We just don't want them also funding their campaigns.
- tacocataco 6y ago
  I must have watched a different ted talk he did on the same subject. I think it was called "the green primary"
User23 6y ago
Put more simply, lobbyists are just the bag men. They facilitate payoffs that are laundered through junkets, book deal advances, insider trading opportunities, and who knows what else. The lobbying firms certainly have little or no idea why the proposed bill they are selling was crafted. It’s a sobering realization that none of our elected legislators are competent to actually write laws. Occasionally you’ll see an example where they’ll have a staff attorney draft something for the purpose of political grandstanding, but that’s a sideshow compared to the amount of legislation written by the people with the real power. The dynamic of how the sausage is made in DC is why, incidentally, Trump had to go. For all his many many faults, one thing he did right was bring buying legal privilege in the form of laws or federal regulations to a grinding halt.
- naravara 6y ago
  > It’s a sobering realization that none of our elected legislators are competent to actually write laws. Occasionally you’ll see an example where they’ll have a staff attorney draft something for the purpose of political grandstanding, but that’s a sideshow compared to the amount of legislation written by the people with the real power. Even if they wanted to, they couldn't. Their staff offices don't have the payroll budgets to pay a decent analyst a living wage so their offices are staffed by the rich children of donors who can afford to be paid a pittance while living in one of the highest cost-of-living metros in the country. Smart legislative analysts are expensive, but none of them can afford to pay off student loans and raise a family at the payscales available to them. So they end up going into advocacy, big law, or lobbying once they cut their teeth on the Hill.
  - User23 6y ago
    That’s more strong evidence that the system really doesn’t work as advertised. If it did then the people that supposedly have the power of the purse and control trillions of dollars in spending might vote themselves enough budget to do their jobs.
    - naravara 6y ago
      They might, but a significant chunk of that body (and of the electorate) is philosophically opposed to the idea of them doing their jobs. Also fundraising, public communications, and case-work are all bigger determinants of them getting reelected than legislative acumen or policy-making skill so big surprise what kinds of people the job selects for.
      - User23 6y ago
        Why do the people who control an organization that can vote trillions of dollars a year into existence need to fundraise? Philosophically opposed, whatever that means, is an obvious fig leaf. The system observably can’t actually be functioning as advertised. Whatever the conditions of the actual operationally descriptive system are, they select for people who vote as they’re told in exchange for a minuscule fraction of the loot.
dane-pgp 6y ago
> weaponizing regular citizens into voting in their interests. It's marketing and mass manipulation Which means there is a problem even if the money never even touches a politician's / campaign's bank account. It's too easy for a politician to say something like "If elected, I will remove burdensome regulations on airlines" as a dog whistle for "I want the airline industry to buy ads that attack my opponent". The only obvious ways to prevent that are to somehow prove that the politician coordinated their position with the industry (which seems impossible) or banning companies from ever expressing a political opinion (which apparently some politicians would like to achieve, but only those political opinions that they disagree with). Fortunately there does exist one slightly less obvious way of preventing this, which doesn't require nullifying all the freedom of speech principles of the First Amendment. What is needed is a law (and probably an enabling Amendment) which limits political advertisements to N dollars per person per year (with N being 1% of the median US income). Importantly, other forms of political speech and expression wouldn't be restricted. This way the law is targeted at the specific loophole that lobbying exploits, which is that people can be bombarded with a message against their wishes, generating an "illusory truth effect". People can still go out and find information, or march in the street to spread awareness of a political cause, but having more money wouldn't give you a greater ability to get your message in front of people who aren't interested in it. The idea above is basically the core of CFR28 which is explained more in the relevant Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform_in_the_United_States#CFR28 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform_in_the...
billytetrud 6y ago
I think there is a lot more quid pro quo than you think. Lobbiests are NOT usually just regular people. They're usually paid agents.
- imtringued 6y ago
  I think he made a distinction between lobbying which anyone can do and a lobbyist which is a career whose sole goal is to do nothing but lobbying.
  - naravara 6y ago
    Yes and no. There are lots of public interest lobbying organizations out there as well. For example, I donate to one that's just focused on making cities more bike friendly. I used to work for one focused on improving how the Census counts people. There's a galaxy of nitpicky, nerdy stuff that's supported by very nerdy volunteers and part-time lobbying efforts (and usually a bit of pro-bono work from one of the big lobbying firms). But even though they outnumber the "big industry" lobbys they just don't have the money, connections, or influence.

fossuser 6y ago

Yeah - I basically agree with this framing. I think Lessig's talk is the best summary of this: https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_... Lobbying itself is fine - we want experts with deep domain expertise interacting with law makers. We just don't want them also funding their campaigns.

tacocataco 6y ago
I must have watched a different ted talk he did on the same subject. I think it was called "the green primary"

User23 6y ago

Put more simply, lobbyists are just the bag men. They facilitate payoffs that are laundered through junkets, book deal advances, insider trading opportunities, and who knows what else. The lobbying firms certainly have little or no idea why the proposed bill they are selling was crafted. It’s a sobering realization that none of our elected legislators are competent to actually write laws. Occasionally you’ll see an example where they’ll have a staff attorney draft something for the purpose of political grandstanding, but that’s a sideshow compared to the amount of legislation written by the people with the real power. The dynamic of how the sausage is made in DC is why, incidentally, Trump had to go. For all his many many faults, one thing he did right was bring buying legal privilege in the form of laws or federal regulations to a grinding halt.

naravara 6y ago
> It’s a sobering realization that none of our elected legislators are competent to actually write laws. Occasionally you’ll see an example where they’ll have a staff attorney draft something for the purpose of political grandstanding, but that’s a sideshow compared to the amount of legislation written by the people with the real power. Even if they wanted to, they couldn't. Their staff offices don't have the payroll budgets to pay a decent analyst a living wage so their offices are staffed by the rich children of donors who can afford to be paid a pittance while living in one of the highest cost-of-living metros in the country. Smart legislative analysts are expensive, but none of them can afford to pay off student loans and raise a family at the payscales available to them. So they end up going into advocacy, big law, or lobbying once they cut their teeth on the Hill.
- User23 6y ago
  That’s more strong evidence that the system really doesn’t work as advertised. If it did then the people that supposedly have the power of the purse and control trillions of dollars in spending might vote themselves enough budget to do their jobs.
  - naravara 6y ago
    They might, but a significant chunk of that body (and of the electorate) is philosophically opposed to the idea of them doing their jobs. Also fundraising, public communications, and case-work are all bigger determinants of them getting reelected than legislative acumen or policy-making skill so big surprise what kinds of people the job selects for.
    - User23 6y ago
      Why do the people who control an organization that can vote trillions of dollars a year into existence need to fundraise? Philosophically opposed, whatever that means, is an obvious fig leaf. The system observably can’t actually be functioning as advertised. Whatever the conditions of the actual operationally descriptive system are, they select for people who vote as they’re told in exchange for a minuscule fraction of the loot.

dane-pgp 6y ago

> weaponizing regular citizens into voting in their interests. It's marketing and mass manipulation Which means there is a problem even if the money never even touches a politician's / campaign's bank account. It's too easy for a politician to say something like "If elected, I will remove burdensome regulations on airlines" as a dog whistle for "I want the airline industry to buy ads that attack my opponent". The only obvious ways to prevent that are to somehow prove that the politician coordinated their position with the industry (which seems impossible) or banning companies from ever expressing a political opinion (which apparently some politicians would like to achieve, but only those political opinions that they disagree with). Fortunately there does exist one slightly less obvious way of preventing this, which doesn't require nullifying all the freedom of speech principles of the First Amendment. What is needed is a law (and probably an enabling Amendment) which limits political advertisements to N dollars per person per year (with N being 1% of the median US income). Importantly, other forms of political speech and expression wouldn't be restricted. This way the law is targeted at the specific loophole that lobbying exploits, which is that people can be bombarded with a message against their wishes, generating an "illusory truth effect". People can still go out and find information, or march in the street to spread awareness of a political cause, but having more money wouldn't give you a greater ability to get your message in front of people who aren't interested in it. The idea above is basically the core of CFR28 which is explained more in the relevant Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform_in_the_United_States#CFR28 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform_in_the...

billytetrud 6y ago

I think there is a lot more quid pro quo than you think. Lobbiests are NOT usually just regular people. They're usually paid agents.

imtringued 6y ago
I think he made a distinction between lobbying which anyone can do and a lobbyist which is a career whose sole goal is to do nothing but lobbying.
- naravara 6y ago
  Yes and no. There are lots of public interest lobbying organizations out there as well. For example, I donate to one that's just focused on making cities more bike friendly. I used to work for one focused on improving how the Census counts people. There's a galaxy of nitpicky, nerdy stuff that's supported by very nerdy volunteers and part-time lobbying efforts (and usually a bit of pro-bono work from one of the big lobbying firms). But even though they outnumber the "big industry" lobbys they just don't have the money, connections, or influence.