4 ms·

Or just ban lobbying.

mitchdoogle 4y ago
How is that supposed to work? Are we going to ban public comment? Are we going to leave politicians to make decisions entirely on their own without any expert advisors?
- orwin 4y ago
  You can ban or limit financing. Make an upper 10 or 20k limit per campaign per person. Lobbyist can still participate in public comment, offer dinner at three star restaurants, write the law proposition/amendment for the politician, but the checks will be limited.
  - sgjohnson 4y ago
    Would require overturning a supreme court precedent or amending the constitution. Because the current settled law is that throwing money at politicians and them then spending it is speech that’s protected under the 1st amendment.
    - kgwxd 4y ago
      Then why can't I throw money at a cop to persuade them to not give me a ticket?
      - jacobr1 4y ago
        We can and do limit actual donations and gifts direct to elected officials. Or at least have laws about transparency. Certainly more to be done here, but the margins of the debate are usually around things like media spending. So, yes, you can buy an ad, or host a rally, or a fundraiser for a city-council candidate, to persuade the city council to raise the speed limit, or make parking free or whatever caused you to get a ticket. You can even schedule a direct meeting, or maybe even take out a representative for a meal to express your concern. The later case might involve some kind of disclosure, but you can probably do it.
    - andrekandre 4y ago
      > the current settled law is that throwing money at politicians and them then spending it is speech iirc the ruling is only about donating to pacs (political action committees) and not politicians directly (small distinction i suppose)
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > iirc the ruling is only about donating to pacs (political action committees) and not politicians directly (small distinction i suppose) It's about independent expenditures groups that do not coordinate with candidate campaigns (which have, after the fact, gotten the name “SuperPACs”; normal PACs can legally coordinate with and donate to campaigns, but cannot receive unlimited donations.)
        andrekandre 4y ago
        right right, super pacs, forgot that specific point, thanks for pointing that out
  - lobocinza 4y ago
    Lobbying is banned on Brazil but it's ineffective. There's a profession called "doleiro" that basically is a guy that facilitates money laundering and exchange of favors between politicians and business. Corruption is so pervasive that politicians job is basically to create all sorts of bureaucratic impediments for everything so if a company wants to do anything it has to pay for special treatment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Car_Wash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Car_Wash
ajmurmann 4y ago
I thought this till I listened to a very nuanced, long discussion on the topic. It turns out that politicians actually need information from the industry to make educated decisions. Where to draw that line between getting information and corruption/ regulatory capture is easy on some cases but hard in general, especially given that those forms of corruption can happen over time not through a single event
- jacobr1 4y ago
  Also, the "bad lobbyist" is always someone on the other side, or nebulous wealthy private actors, or big-bad corporations. Rarely do be people consider things like the efforts of their favorite advocacy group "lobbying" - for example the ACLU, AFL-CIO, or League of Women Voters, should they be limited in how their outreach is is performed? Remember Citizens United was NOT about campaign contributions, but rather independent expenditures that were on the same topic of an election, not coordinated with a campaign. Should LGBT+ groups be limited in how much than can spend to stop odious restrictions of their rights, or planned parenthood campaigning for maintaining the Roe/Wade status-quo? The cost of that is advocacy, influence pedaling, and media spending by other groups you may not support. This is why free-speech is always under-pressure. On the other-hand, we can do much more to require transparency.
- rgrieselhuber 4y ago
  Is it the argument that they are making educated decisions now?
  - smegger001 4y ago
    just think how much worse it could be

How is that supposed to work? Are we going to ban public comment? Are we going to leave politicians to make decisions entirely on their own without any expert advisors?

orwin 4y ago
You can ban or limit financing. Make an upper 10 or 20k limit per campaign per person. Lobbyist can still participate in public comment, offer dinner at three star restaurants, write the law proposition/amendment for the politician, but the checks will be limited.
- sgjohnson 4y ago
  Would require overturning a supreme court precedent or amending the constitution. Because the current settled law is that throwing money at politicians and them then spending it is speech that’s protected under the 1st amendment.
  - kgwxd 4y ago
    Then why can't I throw money at a cop to persuade them to not give me a ticket?
    - jacobr1 4y ago
      We can and do limit actual donations and gifts direct to elected officials. Or at least have laws about transparency. Certainly more to be done here, but the margins of the debate are usually around things like media spending. So, yes, you can buy an ad, or host a rally, or a fundraiser for a city-council candidate, to persuade the city council to raise the speed limit, or make parking free or whatever caused you to get a ticket. You can even schedule a direct meeting, or maybe even take out a representative for a meal to express your concern. The later case might involve some kind of disclosure, but you can probably do it.
  - andrekandre 4y ago
    > the current settled law is that throwing money at politicians and them then spending it is speech iirc the ruling is only about donating to pacs (political action committees) and not politicians directly (small distinction i suppose)
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > iirc the ruling is only about donating to pacs (political action committees) and not politicians directly (small distinction i suppose) It's about independent expenditures groups that do not coordinate with candidate campaigns (which have, after the fact, gotten the name “SuperPACs”; normal PACs can legally coordinate with and donate to campaigns, but cannot receive unlimited donations.)
      - andrekandre 4y ago
        right right, super pacs, forgot that specific point, thanks for pointing that out
- lobocinza 4y ago
  Lobbying is banned on Brazil but it's ineffective. There's a profession called "doleiro" that basically is a guy that facilitates money laundering and exchange of favors between politicians and business. Corruption is so pervasive that politicians job is basically to create all sorts of bureaucratic impediments for everything so if a company wants to do anything it has to pay for special treatment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Car_Wash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Car_Wash

ajmurmann 4y ago

I thought this till I listened to a very nuanced, long discussion on the topic. It turns out that politicians actually need information from the industry to make educated decisions. Where to draw that line between getting information and corruption/ regulatory capture is easy on some cases but hard in general, especially given that those forms of corruption can happen over time not through a single event

jacobr1 4y ago
Also, the "bad lobbyist" is always someone on the other side, or nebulous wealthy private actors, or big-bad corporations. Rarely do be people consider things like the efforts of their favorite advocacy group "lobbying" - for example the ACLU, AFL-CIO, or League of Women Voters, should they be limited in how their outreach is is performed? Remember Citizens United was NOT about campaign contributions, but rather independent expenditures that were on the same topic of an election, not coordinated with a campaign. Should LGBT+ groups be limited in how much than can spend to stop odious restrictions of their rights, or planned parenthood campaigning for maintaining the Roe/Wade status-quo? The cost of that is advocacy, influence pedaling, and media spending by other groups you may not support. This is why free-speech is always under-pressure. On the other-hand, we can do much more to require transparency.
rgrieselhuber 4y ago
Is it the argument that they are making educated decisions now?
- smegger001 4y ago
  just think how much worse it could be