2 ms·
A representative talking to a constituent is an okay form of 'lobbying.' Notably, the representative isn't getting a tangible benefit. Lobbying is broad spect
by klyrs 4y ago
A representative talking to a constituent is an okay form of 'lobbying.' Notably, the representative isn't getting a tangible benefit. Lobbying is broad spectrum and on one end is politicians doing the right thing, and on the other end is corporations making huge donations to political campaigns which is effectively bribery. Lobbying, as it's practiced in US politics, is overwhelmed by the cash that corporations can splash around that individual constituents can never compete with. Your stalwart defense of the practice as a whole is missing the forest for a dead tree.
- publicola1990 4y agoEven in this case representative is getting a tangible benefit that he is possible getting an opportunity to do something which they can in turn take credit for. A lobbyist getting an audience with someone in power therefore may lead to something that is mutually beneficial to the lobbyist and the person in power, without need for materialized bribes. Shutting nuance out of a discussion will mislead us.
- Supermancho 4y ago> Shutting nuance out of a discussion will mislead us. Frequently, lobbying is used for corruption. The insinuation that nuanced perception can somehow alter this dynamic, is not compelling.
- klyrs 4y agoLook, we've got a right to petition our government. Corporate personhood is an abomination that blows that into a barn-door of a loophole. There's a ton of gray area here, but material benefit is, or should be in my opinion, a pretty bright line between legitimacy and bribery. There's tons of nuance here; I'm responding to a person who appears to be insisting that there's absolutely nothing wrong with lobbying when in fact there are lots of problems with the actual practice as observed in the US.