3 ms·

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 que

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.
- avgcorrection 5y ago
  > Really? Most individual people don't lobby because they don't have the money to do it. Meta-comment but this is how all HN threads on topics like this turn out: - Topic: Perpetual rights to all clean drinking water in Nigeria put up for auction - Half the thread: It’s nuts that rich people are able to just buy something that should be a basic human right - The other half: Excuse me, but who said that only rich people can buy these rights? There’s no law that is stopping them from buying this right. Regular people can crowdfund those $20B if they really want. Another option is for the citizens of Nigeria to vote with their feet and move to another country if access to clean drinking water is so important to them. And should clean drinking water be a human right anyway? What if we lived in the vacuum of space and there was no drinking water, huh? Didn’t think of that, did you. And human rights are basically tantamount to slavery since ...
- SyzygistSix 5y ago
  It definitely can be expensive to lobby on the national level, which is why groups like the EFF come about. But some state and local level politicians make themselves available to the public. Sometimes it takes time more than money.
glitcher 5y ago
I believe there are plenty of examples available of lobbying that ends up benefiting companies at the expense of the public. To counter your arguments, I would challenge anyone to try to out-lobby Intuit when it comes to regulation around tax filing. How well do you suppose that opposition has fared so far in the face of huge corporate dollars?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- SyzygistSix 5y ago
  It depends on voter turnout and the issues that drive campaigns. Often times voters seem or are unconcerned with issues to the extent that they don't even bother to vote. And organizations like Intuit are often the only people engaged. A candidate is far less likely to screw over their constituents for a campaign contribution when they know they will be primaried and that their constituents are informed and vote. When they know they will not be primaried and that the same 20% will show up to the primary to vote for the party favorite, then why not go along with Intuit? I realize engagement is difficult for many people but other countries have higher standards and riot when those are threatened. I loved the French firefighters lighting themselves on fire and rushing the police during the riots a year or two ago. People in the US generally don't care that much. At least not enough to organize and vote.

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.
avgcorrection 5y ago
> Really? Most individual people don't lobby because they don't have the money to do it. Meta-comment but this is how all HN threads on topics like this turn out: - Topic: Perpetual rights to all clean drinking water in Nigeria put up for auction - Half the thread: It’s nuts that rich people are able to just buy something that should be a basic human right - The other half: Excuse me, but who said that only rich people can buy these rights? There’s no law that is stopping them from buying this right. Regular people can crowdfund those $20B if they really want. Another option is for the citizens of Nigeria to vote with their feet and move to another country if access to clean drinking water is so important to them. And should clean drinking water be a human right anyway? What if we lived in the vacuum of space and there was no drinking water, huh? Didn’t think of that, did you. And human rights are basically tantamount to slavery since ...
SyzygistSix 5y ago
It definitely can be expensive to lobby on the national level, which is why groups like the EFF come about. But some state and local level politicians make themselves available to the public. Sometimes it takes time more than money.

glitcher 5y ago

I believe there are plenty of examples available of lobbying that ends up benefiting companies at the expense of the public. To counter your arguments, I would challenge anyone to try to out-lobby Intuit when it comes to regulation around tax filing. How well do you suppose that opposition has fared so far in the face of huge corporate dollars?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
SyzygistSix 5y ago
It depends on voter turnout and the issues that drive campaigns. Often times voters seem or are unconcerned with issues to the extent that they don't even bother to vote. And organizations like Intuit are often the only people engaged. A candidate is far less likely to screw over their constituents for a campaign contribution when they know they will be primaried and that their constituents are informed and vote. When they know they will not be primaried and that the same 20% will show up to the primary to vote for the party favorite, then why not go along with Intuit? I realize engagement is difficult for many people but other countries have higher standards and riot when those are threatened. I loved the French firefighters lighting themselves on fire and rushing the police during the riots a year or two ago. People in the US generally don't care that much. At least not enough to organize and vote.