4 ms·

How anyone thinks corporate lobbying is good for anyone other than corrupt politicians and corporate giants is a mystery I will never understand.

by grecy 6y ago

parineum 6y ago
Actual lobbying is such a small part of the money that goes to politicians that it's a red herring. The source of corruption is through PACs that support candidates without the candidates consent or guidance (either ostensibly or actually). You can either give a candidate a few thousand dollars directly or you can spend an unlimited amount of money telling people how great you think the candidate is. Only the former is lobbying.
- grecy 6y ago
  I'm not really interested in discussing semantics, but rather the root issue. Money in Politics, especially when it's perfectly legal, is a massive, massive problem. It's literally impossible to get fair and impartial leaders who will make decisions in the interest of the common person when corporations are spending millions and millions. Right now a judge sitting on the highest court in the entire country is hearing a case involving a company who openly and directly paid to have her elected into that position. I don't care if that person is from the right or left (or middle), there is no universe where that is a good thing, or should be allowed. Having a Supreme Court Justice you paid preside over your court case sounds like a very perverted form of Justice under Democracy to me.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  I'm inclined to treat "you got a million dollar ad buy on your behalf from Municipal Broadband Sucks PAC" as a form of lobbying, personally.
  - anaerobicover 6y ago
    To our misfortune the Supreme Court does not agree, and where they are the opinion that counts. (As you know no doubt already.)
- Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
  I see no difference between "We'll give you $X to vote for this bill" and "We'll spend $X on advertising for your campaign if you vote for this bill".
  - parineum 6y ago
    > "We'll spend $X on advertising for your campaign if you vote for this bill" That's illegal. The advertising is given no strings attached. The only incentive that you (the politician) have to vote for things that favor the company is that, if you don't, they may not advertise for you next time. The "fun" part of this whole thing is that the money those companies spend isn't really the issue, it's the fact that the money is helpful to influence people. Comparatively, if a person of non-political celebrity tweets that they like a candidate, they might muster much more influence than say, Exxon could for the same candidate. Now that candidate is just as beholden to the interests of that celebrity as one might be to a corporation. In effect, the PAC money really is just taking money away from influential individuals and commoditizing it. I, personally, don't really see a difference. It's not like pre-Citizens United America was some sort of paradise. Most people perceive it as worse but I just see it as different. I, personally, still have a similar amount of political power and influence.
    - Cederfjard 6y ago
      > The only incentive that you (the politician) have to vote for things that favor the company is that, if you don't, they may not advertise for you next time. And also that if you do, you may be able to go and work for them for good compensation when your political career is over.
      - lotsofpulp 6y ago
        Or your spouse/sibling/kid/niece/nephew get a nice internship or other position.
    - Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
      > The advertising is given no strings attached. The only incentive that you (the politician) have to vote for things that favor the company is that, if you don't, they may not advertise for you next time. When an oil company buys advertising to a candidate, both parties know it's going to be in exchange for votes that favor the oil company. To claim anything else is bad faith. I THINK we're in agreement here? If so, I don't think it's correct to call it "no strings attached". The politician might not be contractually bound to votes in favor of oil, but if they want to still have a job at the end of their term, they're somewhat forced to.
- pkghost 6y ago
  While lobbyists write actual laws and work for the same companies + industry groups that fund the PACs, I find it difficult to agree with you.
- IgorPartola 6y ago
  Well actually repositions glasses, lobbying is a big part of it: you are a politician for a part of your career. If and when you quit, you can just go work for the lobby that had lobbied you while you were in office. It's an amazingly well planned out safety net that all but the most disgraced politicians (see Anthony Weiner) can rely on. It means that even if you and I and our closes 1000 friends got together and each kicked in $1000 to donate to a politician to, say, vote for municipal broadband, it might not mean nearly as much as $25k from a lobby group that later will hire the politician with a very cushy salary.
- dariusj18 6y ago
  A lot of people immediately think this type of thing is corruption, but consider that these people might actually believe in this stuff and that it's easier for companies to find and support like minded politicians than it is to convince someone who holds an opposite view.
  - Retric 6y ago
    Politicians around the world regularly flip flop on issues in lockstep with their party. That’s not the behavior of someone that actually holds personal views on the subject, suggesting that something else is influencing decision making. Which shouldn’t be surprising as politics covers such a wide range of issues it would be strange for most of them to have strong views on every issue. Frankly it’s people who don’t care one way or the other are who you try and influence.
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
  You're making a distinction where one doesn't exist. Lobbying includes all attempts to influence legislators. PACs are just a legal fiction to circumvent a law, the effect is the same: support those who's policies you prefer.
- dillondoyle 6y ago
  Plus threats to pull or create jobs, fights for tax incentives or other 'free' stuff like special infrastructure or zoning changes. Messaging attacks & earned media are near free, healthcare industry is culpable here. Military seems to be the worst in all of this. Politicians care about getting re-elected. That's the power fulcrum or pressure point.
- specialist 6y ago
  Lobbying and campaigning are tightly coupled. Splitting hairs is moot.

How anyone thinks corporate lobbying is good for anyone other than corrupt politicians and corporate giants is a mystery I will never understand.

by grecy 6y ago

How anyone thinks corporate lobbying is good for anyone other than corrupt politicians and corporate giants is a mystery I will never understand.

parineum 6y ago

Actual lobbying is such a small part of the money that goes to politicians that it's a red herring. The source of corruption is through PACs that support candidates without the candidates consent or guidance (either ostensibly or actually). You can either give a candidate a few thousand dollars directly or you can spend an unlimited amount of money telling people how great you think the candidate is. Only the former is lobbying.

grecy 6y ago
I'm not really interested in discussing semantics, but rather the root issue. Money in Politics, especially when it's perfectly legal, is a massive, massive problem. It's literally impossible to get fair and impartial leaders who will make decisions in the interest of the common person when corporations are spending millions and millions. Right now a judge sitting on the highest court in the entire country is hearing a case involving a company who openly and directly paid to have her elected into that position. I don't care if that person is from the right or left (or middle), there is no universe where that is a good thing, or should be allowed. Having a Supreme Court Justice you paid preside over your court case sounds like a very perverted form of Justice under Democracy to me.
ceejayoz 6y ago
I'm inclined to treat "you got a million dollar ad buy on your behalf from Municipal Broadband Sucks PAC" as a form of lobbying, personally.
- anaerobicover 6y ago
  To our misfortune the Supreme Court does not agree, and where they are the opinion that counts. (As you know no doubt already.)
Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
I see no difference between "We'll give you $X to vote for this bill" and "We'll spend $X on advertising for your campaign if you vote for this bill".
- parineum 6y ago
  > "We'll spend $X on advertising for your campaign if you vote for this bill" That's illegal. The advertising is given no strings attached. The only incentive that you (the politician) have to vote for things that favor the company is that, if you don't, they may not advertise for you next time. The "fun" part of this whole thing is that the money those companies spend isn't really the issue, it's the fact that the money is helpful to influence people. Comparatively, if a person of non-political celebrity tweets that they like a candidate, they might muster much more influence than say, Exxon could for the same candidate. Now that candidate is just as beholden to the interests of that celebrity as one might be to a corporation. In effect, the PAC money really is just taking money away from influential individuals and commoditizing it. I, personally, don't really see a difference. It's not like pre-Citizens United America was some sort of paradise. Most people perceive it as worse but I just see it as different. I, personally, still have a similar amount of political power and influence.
  - Cederfjard 6y ago
    > The only incentive that you (the politician) have to vote for things that favor the company is that, if you don't, they may not advertise for you next time. And also that if you do, you may be able to go and work for them for good compensation when your political career is over.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      Or your spouse/sibling/kid/niece/nephew get a nice internship or other position.
  - Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
    > The advertising is given no strings attached. The only incentive that you (the politician) have to vote for things that favor the company is that, if you don't, they may not advertise for you next time. When an oil company buys advertising to a candidate, both parties know it's going to be in exchange for votes that favor the oil company. To claim anything else is bad faith. I THINK we're in agreement here? If so, I don't think it's correct to call it "no strings attached". The politician might not be contractually bound to votes in favor of oil, but if they want to still have a job at the end of their term, they're somewhat forced to.
pkghost 6y ago
While lobbyists write actual laws and work for the same companies + industry groups that fund the PACs, I find it difficult to agree with you.
IgorPartola 6y ago
Well actually repositions glasses, lobbying is a big part of it: you are a politician for a part of your career. If and when you quit, you can just go work for the lobby that had lobbied you while you were in office. It's an amazingly well planned out safety net that all but the most disgraced politicians (see Anthony Weiner) can rely on. It means that even if you and I and our closes 1000 friends got together and each kicked in $1000 to donate to a politician to, say, vote for municipal broadband, it might not mean nearly as much as $25k from a lobby group that later will hire the politician with a very cushy salary.
dariusj18 6y ago
A lot of people immediately think this type of thing is corruption, but consider that these people might actually believe in this stuff and that it's easier for companies to find and support like minded politicians than it is to convince someone who holds an opposite view.
- Retric 6y ago
  Politicians around the world regularly flip flop on issues in lockstep with their party. That’s not the behavior of someone that actually holds personal views on the subject, suggesting that something else is influencing decision making. Which shouldn’t be surprising as politics covers such a wide range of issues it would be strange for most of them to have strong views on every issue. Frankly it’s people who don’t care one way or the other are who you try and influence.
TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
You're making a distinction where one doesn't exist. Lobbying includes all attempts to influence legislators. PACs are just a legal fiction to circumvent a law, the effect is the same: support those who's policies you prefer.
dillondoyle 6y ago
Plus threats to pull or create jobs, fights for tax incentives or other 'free' stuff like special infrastructure or zoning changes. Messaging attacks & earned media are near free, healthcare industry is culpable here. Military seems to be the worst in all of this. Politicians care about getting re-elected. That's the power fulcrum or pressure point.
specialist 6y ago
Lobbying and campaigning are tightly coupled. Splitting hairs is moot.