3 ms·

I 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 ago
If 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 ago
  Well, 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 ago
      OK 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 ago
        There 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.
        xg15 5y ago
        > perhaps even regular grassroots advocacy. I can say it a third time, I'm not against political advocacy. There is "astroturfung", i.e. pretending you're a grassroots movement when it's actually orchestrated. There is also uber-style "grassroots" campaigning, where you use your existing reach to push your narrative to a broad number of people who are dependent on you. I think the former is deceptive and the latter is unfair. However both are distinct enough from normal awareness campaigns or organic grassroots movements that I don't see a problem. To make an analogy, consider a game like soccer. Soccer is inherently competitive, so it makes no sense to get upset about the fact that there is competition. However, mostly, that competition is restricted by the rules of the game. Even this is not the whole picture: There are a number of rules violations which are generally accepted as part of the game and are even part of strategy, such as tackling other players or drawing out the clock. However, there are other rules violations which are clearly outside the acceptable territory, such as defending the goal with a handgun or bribing the referee. I think a similar case can be made for lobbying.
      - xg15 5y ago
        > Why are we particularly shocked about this instance and not many others? Good question. Fatigue, cynicism, better media spin. There can be a lot of reasons why we're not sufficiently shocked about the other scandals. However in general, if you look at statistics about the trust of the general population in politics (and magacorps), you can see a decline in the last decades. Seems to me, a lot of people are simply reacting to all of this by losing trust - because there is not much else for them to do.
  - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
    > Well, legally speaking, yes, that would likely constitute bribery, which is illegal. Trading law for campaign cash is not illegal in the US, at least not in any meaningful way. Nor is that sort of bribery objectionable to most US voters or news orgs - again, in any meaningful way.
    - emodendroket 5y ago
      There are all kinds of caveats which is why I went with "likely."
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      >Nor is that sort of bribery objectionable to most US voters or news orgs - again, in any meaningful way. Where did you get that idea? AFAICT, most Americans are for getting money out of politics[0][1][2][3]. Am I missing something here? [0] https://www.citizen.org/article/polls-on-citizens-united-and-big-money/ https://www.citizen.org/article/polls-on-citizens-united-and... [1] https://www.issueone.org/new-poll-shows-money-in-politics-is-a-top-voting-concern/ https://www.issueone.org/new-poll-shows-money-in-politics-is... [2] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/08/most-americans-want-to-limit-campaign-spending-say-big-donors-have-greater-political-influence/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/08/most-americ... [3] https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-05-10/study-most-americans-want-kill-citizens-united-constitutional-amendment https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-05-10/study-most-americans-...
      - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
        >> Nor is that sort of bribery objectionable to most US voters or news orgs - again, in any meaningful way. > Where did you get that idea? Voters overwhelming vote for incumbent pols of their party - pols who passed law in response to campaign donations they received. Reelection is a pretty solid approval indicator. Likewise, the dearth of coverage about pols passing laws for campaign cash shows news orgs' ongoing lack of interest.
        xg15 5y ago
- snowwrestler 5y ago
  It would, but that is not what the unredacted docs say.

xg15 5y ago

If 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 ago
Well, 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 ago
    OK 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 ago
      There 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.
        xg15 5y ago
        > perhaps even regular grassroots advocacy. I can say it a third time, I'm not against political advocacy. There is "astroturfung", i.e. pretending you're a grassroots movement when it's actually orchestrated. There is also uber-style "grassroots" campaigning, where you use your existing reach to push your narrative to a broad number of people who are dependent on you. I think the former is deceptive and the latter is unfair. However both are distinct enough from normal awareness campaigns or organic grassroots movements that I don't see a problem. To make an analogy, consider a game like soccer. Soccer is inherently competitive, so it makes no sense to get upset about the fact that there is competition. However, mostly, that competition is restricted by the rules of the game. Even this is not the whole picture: There are a number of rules violations which are generally accepted as part of the game and are even part of strategy, such as tackling other players or drawing out the clock. However, there are other rules violations which are clearly outside the acceptable territory, such as defending the goal with a handgun or bribing the referee. I think a similar case can be made for lobbying.
    - xg15 5y ago
      > Why are we particularly shocked about this instance and not many others? Good question. Fatigue, cynicism, better media spin. There can be a lot of reasons why we're not sufficiently shocked about the other scandals. However in general, if you look at statistics about the trust of the general population in politics (and magacorps), you can see a decline in the last decades. Seems to me, a lot of people are simply reacting to all of this by losing trust - because there is not much else for them to do.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  > Well, legally speaking, yes, that would likely constitute bribery, which is illegal. Trading law for campaign cash is not illegal in the US, at least not in any meaningful way. Nor is that sort of bribery objectionable to most US voters or news orgs - again, in any meaningful way.
  - emodendroket 5y ago
    There are all kinds of caveats which is why I went with "likely."
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >Nor is that sort of bribery objectionable to most US voters or news orgs - again, in any meaningful way. Where did you get that idea? AFAICT, most Americans are for getting money out of politics[0][1][2][3]. Am I missing something here? [0] https://www.citizen.org/article/polls-on-citizens-united-and-big-money/ https://www.citizen.org/article/polls-on-citizens-united-and... [1] https://www.issueone.org/new-poll-shows-money-in-politics-is-a-top-voting-concern/ https://www.issueone.org/new-poll-shows-money-in-politics-is... [2] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/08/most-americans-want-to-limit-campaign-spending-say-big-donors-have-greater-political-influence/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/08/most-americ... [3] https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-05-10/study-most-americans-want-kill-citizens-united-constitutional-amendment https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-05-10/study-most-americans-...
    - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
      >> Nor is that sort of bribery objectionable to most US voters or news orgs - again, in any meaningful way. > Where did you get that idea? Voters overwhelming vote for incumbent pols of their party - pols who passed law in response to campaign donations they received. Reelection is a pretty solid approval indicator. Likewise, the dearth of coverage about pols passing laws for campaign cash shows news orgs' ongoing lack of interest.
      - xg15 5y ago
snowwrestler 5y ago
It would, but that is not what the unredacted docs say.