3 ms·
I guess maybe I'm missing the scandal, but this is why they employ people in "policy" positions, isn't it? It's rather open that they're out to alter the law i
by emodendroket 5y ago
I guess maybe I'm missing the scandal, but this is why they employ people in "policy" positions, isn't it? It's rather open that they're out to alter the law in their favor.
e: Another article in the front page suggests this is highlighted because it draws attention to Google's supposed pro-privacy position as a sham. I hadn't realized they had one but OK.
- xg15 5y agoI think the scandal could be in the "successfully slowed down" part. if you employ people to openly state your position on certain issues and represent your interests, that's ok - that has always been the justification for "good" lobbyism. (Though enough people point out that the ability for groups to effectively "represent their interests" differs dramatically between groups) However, the memo sounds as if they didn't simply stated their position - but also used their power to sabotage the lawmaking process itself and undercut all the usual mechanisms of democratic will formation. That's abuse of power and rightly seen as a scandal - even though google is likely far from the only one doing it.
- emodendroket 5y agoI don't understand the distinction you're making. Influencing lawmakers and regulators to change policy in your favor is exactly what lobbying is.
- xg15 5y agoIf someone influenced lawmakers by promising to pay them a lot of money if they voted in their favour, that would be different, would it?
- emodendroket 5y agoWell, legally speaking, yes, that would likely constitute bribery, which is illegal. But in your case you're saying the lobbying is scandalous because it worked, not because someone broke the law.
- a1369209993 5y ago> which is illegal. So if the law were changed to legalize bribery, and then someone influenced lawmakers by promising to pay them a lot of money, that would be okay? Does this philosophy also extend to, to pick a deliberately extreme example, murder?
- emodendroket 5y agoOK let's back up. It's not even an open secret but just regular, acknowledged fact that this sort of result is the purpose of lobbying. Is the scandal, in this case, that the lobbying worked? Why are we particularly shocked about this instance and not many others?
- a1369209993 5y ago> Why are we particularly [outraged][0] about this instance []and not many others[]? Ah, yes. Fair enough. I agree that there are many other cases of legal but unconscionable lobbying that also need to be criminalized and prosecuted (but won't be). 0: I don't think "shocked" per se is a reasonable characterization, but that doesn't seem to be your point.
- xg15 5y agoThere are many who do argue that lobbying as a whole should be abolished. I personally don't quite agree with that. I think there is a place for "transparent" lobbying - e.g. openly stating the concerns of your interest group as part of normal public debate. However, this is a power that must be available to all interest groups. Additionally, groups must be willing to make compromises or accept if their arguments are dismissed by the public. What I think is not ok is for a group to use power, connections and manipulation to push through their interests even against public opinion. That's what bribery or obstructive tactics are doing.
- emodendroket 5y ago> What I think is not ok is for a group to use power, connections and manipulation to push through their interests even against public opinion. Then you should be opposed to lobbying tout court and, honestly, perhaps even regular grassroots advocacy.
- snowwrestler 5y agoIt would, but that is not what the unredacted docs say.