3 ms·

I agree that it's good for elected politicians in a democracy to meet with and hear the concerns of their constituents. That is literally their job, and the re

• kbenson 6y ago
  > The problem I have is when this "meeting" involves giving those elected officials money But that's not lobbying, and that's against the law. The problem is the weird edge cases, like inviting the politicians and their families to a summit to discuss the issue that just happens to be in the Bahamas, or less obviously all the different dinner meetings that add up, etc. Honestly, those examples aren't so much edge cases as much as entrenched obvious problems some of which are explicitly illegal and others grey, but there are lots of edge cases that are much harder to track down, where the quid-pro-quo is separated by time or other things, such as businesses of close or not so close family members and friends getting more consideration, etc which then flow back to the politician from someone else (can a politician's cousin not invite them on a family vacation and offer to foot the bill?). Lobbying isn't so much the problem as corruption is, and lobbying just makes some small part of the corruption easier to do in the open, the explanation of what's wanted, because that's an obvious thing you want politicians to hear from interested parties in the areas they represent, whether businesses or individuals. Blaming lobbying for corruption is like blaming encrypted messaging for terrorism. Sure, they help those using them for nefarious purposes, but getting rid of them doesn't eliminate the problem, it just makes it slightly easier to see at the expense of the people that used those for good purposes. In both cases I would argue we're better off leaving those communication mediums available and attacking the problem from a different angle. I'm not sure what that is for lobbying, but "you're not allowed to talk to your politician" doesn't seem like it's it.