8 ms·

This is crazy. Bribing is illegal, but lobbying is legal. How many laws are created for the convenience of corporations and select people at the cost of ordinar

This is crazy. Bribing is illegal, but lobbying is legal. How many laws are created for the convenience of corporations and select people at the cost of ordinary because of lobbying? Why no one in the US brings up this to the political agenda?

jessaustin 5y ago
Why no one in the US brings up this to the political agenda? Rational people talk about it enough that eventually all their friends beg them to stop talking about it. Perhaps you meant to ask why this is never mentioned on popular commercial news media? Or perhaps you meant to ask why no politician affiliated with Democrat or Republican ever mention it? Those would have been perceptive questions.
- SyzygistSix 5y ago
  And the people who run for office who talk about it generally lose in the primaries, when we have the chance to support more honest and genuine representatives.
avmich 5y ago
I think Lawrence Lessig was trying to focus on this before 2016 presidential elections.
- tuyguntn 5y ago
  yeah I think this must be solved before any other secondary problems. If taxpayers need President, then let their campaign funded only by taxpayer money. Same applies to Senate and everyone who is elected. Limited and equal amount to all sides and let them be as creative as possible. But never take corporation money
  - pstuart 5y ago
    Indeed. The problem is not lobbying, but campaign finance reform. Conceptually simple, politically impossible.
- chefandy 5y ago
  Sad that he didn't get more traction because he had some fantastic practical and well-thought-out policy solutions: I mean, how rare is that among folks with political aspirations? Even if he had, he'd not likely have made it too far, anyway. Too many people with too much influence have too much at stake. Someone would have whipped up a gazillion dollar FUD machine against him the very second broad support for his ideas seemed plausible.
ZetaZero 5y ago
It's nearly impossible to get your name on a state-wide ballot without taking corporate lobbying.
- SyzygistSix 5y ago
  No it isn't. Since the internet became commonly available it is easier and less expensive than ever. It is however very difficult to get people to vote for you. There is very little voter engagement in the primaries when it is most important and effective.
jimbob45 5y ago
What's wrong with lobbying? If you have a viewpoint that you feel isn't being heard, you're free to form a non-profit and have the government subsidize your quest to have them listen to you. Remember that laws are hard to create and usually incredibly complex. Even something as simple as Net Neutrality isn't black and white in terms of winners and losers. What you perceive as "laws created for the convenience of corporations and select people at the cost of ordinary people" may not be as numerous as you may think.
- cute_boi 5y ago
  The wrong thing is good people etc can't afford to lobby which means its usually corporation that does it. And if corporation follow principles, adhere to ethics most of them are not going to be billion dollar corporation. "you're free to form a non-profit and have the government subsidize your quest to have them listen to you" This is a common fallacy. You have to be elites etc for such thing to happen. Yes laws, reforms etc are hard to create but this doesn't mean any one can bribe and create law in their favor? We should always complain about wrong law that is created for skulduggery. Net Neutrality is good for consumers bad for few corporation so we are clear its mostly good.
- Lich 5y ago
  Really? Most individual people don't lobby because they don't have the money to do it. That's why it's almost always a corporate lobbyist. Why do you think it's a good system to have concerns heard only for those who have financial wealth? That skews government policy towards elites and the wealthy, and favors corporate benefit and health. Do you really believe the government is in service to corporations or to the American people? Even when it is an individual, it's almost always a billionaire like Bezos or Bloomberg who is trying to STEAL American taxpayer money so that they can go on their stupid space trips.
  - jimbob45 5y ago
    That sounds like you agree with the current state of things though. You agree that citizens should form groups to lobby to counter corporation lobbying. You agree that the government should (and does) give these groups money to lobby via tax statuses and tax incentives. The only disagreement is that you believe these groups should be given more money.
azinman2 5y ago
Because the people making laws benefit from it. It’s the people that are hurt. It’s also not clear what would happen if you somehow were able to make all campaign spending derived from public funds and make lobbying illegal. It would likely just increase direct corruption, but perhaps it would be less than you see now. On the other hand, while only available to the wealthy, lobbying allows for a kind of direct democracy.
- moritonal 5y ago
  I'm fairly sure what you described is the UK system?
s5300 5y ago
? Citizens United was a long time ago Nobody has started killing any of the ultra rich involved in it yet so nothing is going to happen.
dfxm12 5y ago
Why no one in the US brings up this to the political agenda? Some politicians do (especially progressives, like Sanders, the Squad, etc.), but they are in the political minority compared to politicians who are swayed by corporate money. The fact is, your average voter singularly cares more about other things (2A, abortion, taxes) than their own privacy. The average media outlet is also very pro-corporation, which, in turn leads to your average voter being pro-corporation as well.
- user3939382 5y ago
  > progressives, like Sanders, the Squad As far as I can tell: Bernie doesn't want to be run out of town like Ralph Nader -- he will do nothing to actually buck the establishment DNC. The squad feigns protest to the establishment DNC (Pelosi et al) only when it's already certain that their voice/vote won't actually effect the outcome of the issue in the direction the establishment wants. It's a scam to keep people voting for Democrats even when they can see the party is corrupt.
gruez 5y ago
>Bribing is illegal, but lobbying is legal. Because bribing is paying someone to breach their public duty, whereas lobbying only theoretically involves you trying to persuade your representative. Sure, it can involve "bad" stuff (eg. relaxing environmental regulations), but can also involve "good" stuff (eg. relaxing zoning regulations). Citizens, or groups of citizens (eg. corporations) engaging with their representatives is part of the democratic process.
- omgwtfbyobbq 5y ago
  Someone could be bribed to do "good" stuff too. I think the difference is quid pro quo plus the transfer of things of value that does not conform to existing rules.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >I think the difference is quid pro quo plus the transfer of things of value that does not conform to existing rules. I didn't intend to say "well it could also be used for good so we should keep it legal", but yeah this is probably the better take. A better analogy might be: it's totally legal to persuade a judge of your case (ie. what the prosecution/plaintiff/defense does), and totally part of the legal process, but persuading a judge via bribes is illegal.
- _jal 5y ago
  > Citizens, or groups of citizens (eg. corporations) engaging with their representatives is part of the democratic process. That's the pretty way to present it. In practice, "Citizens, or groups of citizens" is true but unfortunately vague, sort of similar to "Mammals, or groups of mammals, are known to sometimes build buildings out of prefabricated concrete." Lobbying is a heavily professionalized activity, mostly undertaken by specialist lawyers employed full-time for the job.
  - nielsbot 5y ago
    Or "retired" government officials via the revolving door. This is also backdoor bribery: "help us out, you got a cushy job waiting for you in the future."
quickthrowman 5y ago
Nobody talks about it because Citizens United v FEC would need to be reversed to change anything in a meaningful way. Reversing that Supreme Court decision is about as likely as admitting Puerto Rico as the 51st state, it won’t happen.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> Why no one in the US brings up this to the political agenda? Because the term "lobbying" is overinclusive to the point of being useless. 90% of lobbying is not only benign, it's necessary to the functioning of a republic. It involves people likely to be affected by the law telling lawmakers their thoughts. These people can be companies. They are also, very frequently, interest groups, nonprofits and individual voters. This is why "let's ban lobbying" is a siren call. If you have representative democracy, you will have influence peddling, i.e. lobbying. "Let's ban corporate lobbying" becomes more tangible, but keep in mind this means you're basically banning every business that can't fly its employees to D.C. from being able to fully communicate with lawmakers. (It also leaves untouched the community organizing side of lobbying, arguably its most potent part, and would probably fall afoul of the First Amendment.) The unfortunate effect of this overinclusiveness is it papers over the bad stuff. The lack of enforcement around campaigns coördinating with PACs. Board seats and cushy jobs offered to former lawmakers. Campaign donations from non-natural persons. This is the stuff I think people are actually offended by. But it's currently too technical for the base that wants to "ban lobbying." TL; DR If you want to push the needle on this issue, drop the idea that lobbying is bad. If you've donated to the EFF, you've hired a lobbyist. If you've called your Congressperson, you've lobbied.
- gaganyaan 5y ago
  Let's make it a felony to have any private contact between companies and legislators then. All communication must be publicly available.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > Let's make it a felony to have any private contact between companies and legislators then Don't know if it's a felony to violate. But this sounds consistent with the Ethics in Government Act of 1978's reporting requirements [1]. > All communication must be publicly available This is a bad idea. It privileges those with physical access to lawmakers. It will also crowd out a good amount of honest communication in favor of theatre for public consumption. That said, there might be a way to thread the needle such that substantial communications around actual legislation get captured. Mark-ups on drafts, suggested language, official policy memos, et cetera. [1] https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/disclosure https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/disclosure
jedimastert 5y ago
> Bribing is illegal, but lobbying is legal What do you think "lobbying" actually means?
mmazing 5y ago
This. All of these other topics you see on either side of the political spectrum are convenient distractions for things like the Panama Papers, lobbying, and corporate welfare. How do we keep topics that matter across the political spectrum at the forefront of public view?
openasocket 5y ago
I'm in the DC area, have friends in the lobbying space. Lobbying generally doesn't involve money changing hands, or campaign contributions, or anything like that. Lobbying congresspeople generally consists of contacting them and convincing them the value of certain positions. Realistically, lobbying is essential for Congress to function. You can't possibly expect every single member of Congress to be an expert on everything they could ever possibly legislate about. They require someone to provide them with background information so that they can make an informed decision. To some extent they can use their staff, or the Congressional Research Service, or do some research on their own, but generally speaking that's not enough. Legislators often maintain active relationships with lobbying groups that they agree with, and can use them as a source on input on legislation. This is no different than a citizen choosing to support a particular bill because a group they trust and respect supports it. A significant amount of lobbying is done simply because a legislator values that group's opinions. When we're talking about more coercive lobbying, it's often done on influence rather than money. A good example is the NRA. There are a significant number of voters for whom gun rights are very important, and will vote for or against a particular candidate based entirely on what the NRA says to do. The NRA thus has a lot of power, and I'd argue more so than could be achieved simply with money. Businesses can lobby based on influence too. If a particular company or industry employs a significant number of your constituents, as a congressperson it is in your best interests to cater to that company or industry. If legislation is passed that helps that industry, they may expand and you can come back to your voters at election time showing you created jobs. If you pass legislation that hurts that industry and people are laid off, on the other hand, people may blame you for it. Even the thought that you might pass a law that might help or hurt an industry can change votes. Don't get me wrong, we need to reform campaign financing. But lobbying in general is a perfectly reasonable and necessary function.

jessaustin 5y ago

Why no one in the US brings up this to the political agenda? Rational people talk about it enough that eventually all their friends beg them to stop talking about it. Perhaps you meant to ask why this is never mentioned on popular commercial news media? Or perhaps you meant to ask why no politician affiliated with Democrat or Republican ever mention it? Those would have been perceptive questions.

SyzygistSix 5y ago
And the people who run for office who talk about it generally lose in the primaries, when we have the chance to support more honest and genuine representatives.

avmich 5y ago

I think Lawrence Lessig was trying to focus on this before 2016 presidential elections.

tuyguntn 5y ago
yeah I think this must be solved before any other secondary problems. If taxpayers need President, then let their campaign funded only by taxpayer money. Same applies to Senate and everyone who is elected. Limited and equal amount to all sides and let them be as creative as possible. But never take corporation money
- pstuart 5y ago
  Indeed. The problem is not lobbying, but campaign finance reform. Conceptually simple, politically impossible.
chefandy 5y ago
Sad that he didn't get more traction because he had some fantastic practical and well-thought-out policy solutions: I mean, how rare is that among folks with political aspirations? Even if he had, he'd not likely have made it too far, anyway. Too many people with too much influence have too much at stake. Someone would have whipped up a gazillion dollar FUD machine against him the very second broad support for his ideas seemed plausible.

ZetaZero 5y ago

It's nearly impossible to get your name on a state-wide ballot without taking corporate lobbying.

SyzygistSix 5y ago
No it isn't. Since the internet became commonly available it is easier and less expensive than ever. It is however very difficult to get people to vote for you. There is very little voter engagement in the primaries when it is most important and effective.

jimbob45 5y ago

What's wrong with lobbying? If you have a viewpoint that you feel isn't being heard, you're free to form a non-profit and have the government subsidize your quest to have them listen to you. Remember that laws are hard to create and usually incredibly complex. Even something as simple as Net Neutrality isn't black and white in terms of winners and losers. What you perceive as "laws created for the convenience of corporations and select people at the cost of ordinary people" may not be as numerous as you may think.

cute_boi 5y ago
The wrong thing is good people etc can't afford to lobby which means its usually corporation that does it. And if corporation follow principles, adhere to ethics most of them are not going to be billion dollar corporation. "you're free to form a non-profit and have the government subsidize your quest to have them listen to you" This is a common fallacy. You have to be elites etc for such thing to happen. Yes laws, reforms etc are hard to create but this doesn't mean any one can bribe and create law in their favor? We should always complain about wrong law that is created for skulduggery. Net Neutrality is good for consumers bad for few corporation so we are clear its mostly good.
Lich 5y ago
Really? Most individual people don't lobby because they don't have the money to do it. That's why it's almost always a corporate lobbyist. Why do you think it's a good system to have concerns heard only for those who have financial wealth? That skews government policy towards elites and the wealthy, and favors corporate benefit and health. Do you really believe the government is in service to corporations or to the American people? Even when it is an individual, it's almost always a billionaire like Bezos or Bloomberg who is trying to STEAL American taxpayer money so that they can go on their stupid space trips.
- jimbob45 5y ago
  That sounds like you agree with the current state of things though. You agree that citizens should form groups to lobby to counter corporation lobbying. You agree that the government should (and does) give these groups money to lobby via tax statuses and tax incentives. The only disagreement is that you believe these groups should be given more money.

azinman2 5y ago

Because the people making laws benefit from it. It’s the people that are hurt. It’s also not clear what would happen if you somehow were able to make all campaign spending derived from public funds and make lobbying illegal. It would likely just increase direct corruption, but perhaps it would be less than you see now. On the other hand, while only available to the wealthy, lobbying allows for a kind of direct democracy.

moritonal 5y ago
I'm fairly sure what you described is the UK system?

s5300 5y ago

? Citizens United was a long time ago Nobody has started killing any of the ultra rich involved in it yet so nothing is going to happen.

dfxm12 5y ago

Why no one in the US brings up this to the political agenda? Some politicians do (especially progressives, like Sanders, the Squad, etc.), but they are in the political minority compared to politicians who are swayed by corporate money. The fact is, your average voter singularly cares more about other things (2A, abortion, taxes) than their own privacy. The average media outlet is also very pro-corporation, which, in turn leads to your average voter being pro-corporation as well.

user3939382 5y ago
> progressives, like Sanders, the Squad As far as I can tell: Bernie doesn't want to be run out of town like Ralph Nader -- he will do nothing to actually buck the establishment DNC. The squad feigns protest to the establishment DNC (Pelosi et al) only when it's already certain that their voice/vote won't actually effect the outcome of the issue in the direction the establishment wants. It's a scam to keep people voting for Democrats even when they can see the party is corrupt.

gruez 5y ago

>Bribing is illegal, but lobbying is legal. Because bribing is paying someone to breach their public duty, whereas lobbying only theoretically involves you trying to persuade your representative. Sure, it can involve "bad" stuff (eg. relaxing environmental regulations), but can also involve "good" stuff (eg. relaxing zoning regulations). Citizens, or groups of citizens (eg. corporations) engaging with their representatives is part of the democratic process.

omgwtfbyobbq 5y ago
Someone could be bribed to do "good" stuff too. I think the difference is quid pro quo plus the transfer of things of value that does not conform to existing rules.
- gruez 5y ago
  >I think the difference is quid pro quo plus the transfer of things of value that does not conform to existing rules. I didn't intend to say "well it could also be used for good so we should keep it legal", but yeah this is probably the better take. A better analogy might be: it's totally legal to persuade a judge of your case (ie. what the prosecution/plaintiff/defense does), and totally part of the legal process, but persuading a judge via bribes is illegal.
_jal 5y ago
> Citizens, or groups of citizens (eg. corporations) engaging with their representatives is part of the democratic process. That's the pretty way to present it. In practice, "Citizens, or groups of citizens" is true but unfortunately vague, sort of similar to "Mammals, or groups of mammals, are known to sometimes build buildings out of prefabricated concrete." Lobbying is a heavily professionalized activity, mostly undertaken by specialist lawyers employed full-time for the job.
- nielsbot 5y ago
  Or "retired" government officials via the revolving door. This is also backdoor bribery: "help us out, you got a cushy job waiting for you in the future."

quickthrowman 5y ago

Nobody talks about it because Citizens United v FEC would need to be reversed to change anything in a meaningful way. Reversing that Supreme Court decision is about as likely as admitting Puerto Rico as the 51st state, it won’t happen.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> Why no one in the US brings up this to the political agenda? Because the term "lobbying" is overinclusive to the point of being useless. 90% of lobbying is not only benign, it's necessary to the functioning of a republic. It involves people likely to be affected by the law telling lawmakers their thoughts. These people can be companies. They are also, very frequently, interest groups, nonprofits and individual voters. This is why "let's ban lobbying" is a siren call. If you have representative democracy, you will have influence peddling, i.e. lobbying. "Let's ban corporate lobbying" becomes more tangible, but keep in mind this means you're basically banning every business that can't fly its employees to D.C. from being able to fully communicate with lawmakers. (It also leaves untouched the community organizing side of lobbying, arguably its most potent part, and would probably fall afoul of the First Amendment.) The unfortunate effect of this overinclusiveness is it papers over the bad stuff. The lack of enforcement around campaigns coördinating with PACs. Board seats and cushy jobs offered to former lawmakers. Campaign donations from non-natural persons. This is the stuff I think people are actually offended by. But it's currently too technical for the base that wants to "ban lobbying." TL; DR If you want to push the needle on this issue, drop the idea that lobbying is bad. If you've donated to the EFF, you've hired a lobbyist. If you've called your Congressperson, you've lobbied.

gaganyaan 5y ago
Let's make it a felony to have any private contact between companies and legislators then. All communication must be publicly available.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > Let's make it a felony to have any private contact between companies and legislators then Don't know if it's a felony to violate. But this sounds consistent with the Ethics in Government Act of 1978's reporting requirements [1]. > All communication must be publicly available This is a bad idea. It privileges those with physical access to lawmakers. It will also crowd out a good amount of honest communication in favor of theatre for public consumption. That said, there might be a way to thread the needle such that substantial communications around actual legislation get captured. Mark-ups on drafts, suggested language, official policy memos, et cetera. [1] https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/disclosure https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/disclosure

jedimastert 5y ago

> Bribing is illegal, but lobbying is legal What do you think "lobbying" actually means?

mmazing 5y ago

This. All of these other topics you see on either side of the political spectrum are convenient distractions for things like the Panama Papers, lobbying, and corporate welfare. How do we keep topics that matter across the political spectrum at the forefront of public view?

openasocket 5y ago

I'm in the DC area, have friends in the lobbying space. Lobbying generally doesn't involve money changing hands, or campaign contributions, or anything like that. Lobbying congresspeople generally consists of contacting them and convincing them the value of certain positions. Realistically, lobbying is essential for Congress to function. You can't possibly expect every single member of Congress to be an expert on everything they could ever possibly legislate about. They require someone to provide them with background information so that they can make an informed decision. To some extent they can use their staff, or the Congressional Research Service, or do some research on their own, but generally speaking that's not enough. Legislators often maintain active relationships with lobbying groups that they agree with, and can use them as a source on input on legislation. This is no different than a citizen choosing to support a particular bill because a group they trust and respect supports it. A significant amount of lobbying is done simply because a legislator values that group's opinions. When we're talking about more coercive lobbying, it's often done on influence rather than money. A good example is the NRA. There are a significant number of voters for whom gun rights are very important, and will vote for or against a particular candidate based entirely on what the NRA says to do. The NRA thus has a lot of power, and I'd argue more so than could be achieved simply with money. Businesses can lobby based on influence too. If a particular company or industry employs a significant number of your constituents, as a congressperson it is in your best interests to cater to that company or industry. If legislation is passed that helps that industry, they may expand and you can come back to your voters at election time showing you created jobs. If you pass legislation that hurts that industry and people are laid off, on the other hand, people may blame you for it. Even the thought that you might pass a law that might help or hurt an industry can change votes. Don't get me wrong, we need to reform campaign financing. But lobbying in general is a perfectly reasonable and necessary function.