3 ms·

> If you believe lobbying is harmful to our democratic processes please present that argument directly. Not OP, but it is easy to understand how lobbying is to

> If you believe lobbying is harmful to our democratic processes please present that argument directly. Not OP, but it is easy to understand how lobbying is too close to a quid pro quo scheme. If a politician receives donations in any form, in order to push for legislation that may benefit the donors, how is it any different from bribery?

mulmen 5y ago
The rule of law. Subtlety matters. Calling lobbying bribery is apathy, which is uninteresting. Even worse, it’s ineffective. > If a politician receives donations in any form, in order to push for legislation that may benefit the donors, how is it any different from bribery? So, should I donate to a mayoral campaign that aligns with my beliefs? Is all money in politics evil, or is it just a matter of degrees? What if that mayoral candidate is a “political outsider” who relies on “grassroots support” to enable them to quit their job and focus on the campaign? I’m an expert in my field. Should I inform my elected leaders on the nuances of that field when they write legislation that relates to it? Or should laws only be written by the ignorant? How ignorant should they be? Trade is a quid pro quo scheme. Pretending all exchanges of value are the same is, again, uninteresting. How can such a position be engaged? And to what end? Where’s the line between bribery and democracy? It’s not easy to draw. Calling lobbying bribery is an apathetic oversimplification. It’s uninteresting and isn’t a position that can be engaged constructively.
- manuelabeledo 5y ago
  > The rule of law. Making it legal doesn’t make it moral or ethical. Bribes aren’t necessarily illegal either. > So, should I donate to a mayoral campaign that aligns with my beliefs? There is a very clear distinction between donating and lobbying. Political donations are typically not driven to any specific end, whereas lobbying seeks to influence specific legislation. Saying that lobbyists look to “inform” the “ignorant” legislators is naive and disregards the fact that congress and senate people have enough staff at their disposal to do the necessary research to pass legislation. Lobbyists aren’t experts. They are marketers. It seems that to you, a lobbyist is an expert in a field, like a doctor is an expert in medicine. In reality, a lobbyist is more akin to a drug sales rep, a marketer. Do sales reps accurately inform doctors about drugs, or do they try to get them to prescribe a certain brand? Lobbying is then legalised bribery. In fact, the US is one of the few developed countries where blatant private enterprise interference is allowed at all levels of government.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Rury 5y ago
So there is a subtle difference. Take a commission for example. Sounds pretty similar to a bribe right? Difference is, bribe makes for a hostage / preferential treatment situation (give me something extra sweet or else no deal/guarantee), whereas a commission is a cut based upon a predetermined price that a salesmen can't really change (e.g. getting a 2% cut for every car you sell at some dealer). Salesmen can negotiate sell price to some extent, affecting their cut, but they can't make demands to the buyer to pay them an extra side deal first (otherwise, if he does, it's a bribe). The buyer, is free to give him an additional tip if he'd like, after the deal is done, but not if it was coerced prior by the seller. As far as lobbying, there is still the same difference. If a politician said they would promise to personally do X for someone only if given Y dollars, it's a bribe. Instead, if a politician said they would do X if elected, and some random person heard this and liked their cause and so decided to donate them Y dollars, it's not a bribe, because the politician wasn't going to give preferential treatment due to the donation, and the donor wasn't coerced. And it works in reverse. If a donor said there will be extra X money if you do Y personally for me when elected, it's a bribe. See the difference now?

mulmen 5y ago

The rule of law. Subtlety matters. Calling lobbying bribery is apathy, which is uninteresting. Even worse, it’s ineffective. > If a politician receives donations in any form, in order to push for legislation that may benefit the donors, how is it any different from bribery? So, should I donate to a mayoral campaign that aligns with my beliefs? Is all money in politics evil, or is it just a matter of degrees? What if that mayoral candidate is a “political outsider” who relies on “grassroots support” to enable them to quit their job and focus on the campaign? I’m an expert in my field. Should I inform my elected leaders on the nuances of that field when they write legislation that relates to it? Or should laws only be written by the ignorant? How ignorant should they be? Trade is a quid pro quo scheme. Pretending all exchanges of value are the same is, again, uninteresting. How can such a position be engaged? And to what end? Where’s the line between bribery and democracy? It’s not easy to draw. Calling lobbying bribery is an apathetic oversimplification. It’s uninteresting and isn’t a position that can be engaged constructively.

manuelabeledo 5y ago
> The rule of law. Making it legal doesn’t make it moral or ethical. Bribes aren’t necessarily illegal either. > So, should I donate to a mayoral campaign that aligns with my beliefs? There is a very clear distinction between donating and lobbying. Political donations are typically not driven to any specific end, whereas lobbying seeks to influence specific legislation. Saying that lobbyists look to “inform” the “ignorant” legislators is naive and disregards the fact that congress and senate people have enough staff at their disposal to do the necessary research to pass legislation. Lobbyists aren’t experts. They are marketers. It seems that to you, a lobbyist is an expert in a field, like a doctor is an expert in medicine. In reality, a lobbyist is more akin to a drug sales rep, a marketer. Do sales reps accurately inform doctors about drugs, or do they try to get them to prescribe a certain brand? Lobbying is then legalised bribery. In fact, the US is one of the few developed countries where blatant private enterprise interference is allowed at all levels of government.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Rury 5y ago

So there is a subtle difference. Take a commission for example. Sounds pretty similar to a bribe right? Difference is, bribe makes for a hostage / preferential treatment situation (give me something extra sweet or else no deal/guarantee), whereas a commission is a cut based upon a predetermined price that a salesmen can't really change (e.g. getting a 2% cut for every car you sell at some dealer). Salesmen can negotiate sell price to some extent, affecting their cut, but they can't make demands to the buyer to pay them an extra side deal first (otherwise, if he does, it's a bribe). The buyer, is free to give him an additional tip if he'd like, after the deal is done, but not if it was coerced prior by the seller. As far as lobbying, there is still the same difference. If a politician said they would promise to personally do X for someone only if given Y dollars, it's a bribe. Instead, if a politician said they would do X if elected, and some random person heard this and liked their cause and so decided to donate them Y dollars, it's not a bribe, because the politician wasn't going to give preferential treatment due to the donation, and the donor wasn't coerced. And it works in reverse. If a donor said there will be extra X money if you do Y personally for me when elected, it's a bribe. See the difference now?