4 ms·

If you remove lobbying from a political system then the elected officials exist in a vacuum with no information coming from outside sources. Remember charities

If you remove lobbying from a political system then the elected officials exist in a vacuum with no information coming from outside sources. Remember charities and NGO's also lobby government (as well as the churches, mosques, temples, big pharma, little pharma, oil, mothers for this or that, fathers for other stuff, governments for war, governments for peace.... this list is endless). The problem isn't lobbying. It's corrupt elected officials who at best accept bribes/payment to fund an overly expensive electioneering machine. The problem is that lobbying happens with no public over site and now accountability. The problem is more complex than just removing lobbying. Do you really want government making decisions without asking companies advice? The same companies that the government expects to implement strategies? Say for example the USA predicts a 20% increase in crude oil use over the next 10 years. Where the refineries should go, where the oil is best sourced, how the petrol products are best distributed are all important questions that the oil industry is well placed to help answer. Not dictate of course but their opinion should matter. EDIT: Before anyone accuses me of supporting the current system please give me the benefit of the doubt. I understand the system is inadequate as it stands but to remove lobbying just creates another problem of equal gravity.

kandu 15y ago
When considering a decision, elected officials may consult existing scientific literature, may commission scientific studies or polls on the issue, or request the public comments on their specific proposal. There are plenty of information sources to inform them. If they rely just on information provided by the richest, and which represents the interest of these richest groups, the politician's decisions will be suboptimal.
- dazzawazza 15y ago
  Agreed, I wouldn't advocate just taking the opinion of the richest. Nor would I advocate just taking the opinion of scientists as important as their work is. It would be nice if we lived in a simple world but most of what politicians consider has no simple answer and there are diverse opinions that should guide them. Industry is just one of them. For example, lets look at public health. It would be stupid to look at public health issues without asking pharmaceutical companies what they think. It would be equally stupid to sit at the table and think they are not trying to make money. It would be equally stupid to not ask scientist, public health officials and the public. It seems reasonable to me that the pharma companies would employ specialist PR people to deal with legislation. It does not seem reasonable to me that in order to stay elected individuals need to raise millions of dollars to fight for what they believe and are thus open to bribery. Fix that and lobbying no longer matters. All businesses exist to make money. That is their sole goal. If you know that then there can be a reasonable outcome. BTW: All western democracies are struggling with Lobbying. Only the US has got in to the state where it appears that lobbying has the upper hand (although many would argue the UK is close).
- damoncali 15y ago
  You can sort through thousands of opinions, or you can organize them. Organzied groups of similar thinking folks are what the media calls "special interest groups" or "lobbyists". Now, quick - find me some scientific literature on a 1031 real estate exchange (for example). Then tell me what you think of them. How long did that take? How confident are you that you understand the issue? Now do that for 1,000,000 more issues of equal or greater complexity. Lobbyists are a necessary and good part of democracy.
  - Flenser 15y ago
    Lobbyists are a necessary and good part of democracy. They just shouldn't be able to give politicians money.
    - twoodfin 15y ago
      A lobbyist can give a candidate for Federal election the same amount as you or I: $2,500.
      - nealmydataorg 15y ago
        There are other ways presidential candidates get more than 2,500 from a person. Please check out http://mydataorganizer.com/fund.html http://mydataorganizer.com/fund.html You can search for the donors who donated at least 30,000 . There are about 1000 people who donated more than 30,000 each for the 2012 US Presidential election.
  - ypcx 15y ago
    Lobbyists are a necessary and good part of... ...getting 90% of your money stolen by those who have money. I hope you have absolutely no damn idea how delusional you are. Lobbyism is the cancer of this society and of this planet, and it will destroy it if not stopped. It's a simple equation: do you know what you get, if you add an "interest group", less than 100% systemic transparency, and give it some time? The best term for the result is "organized crime".
- anamax 15y ago
  > When considering a decision, elected officials may consult existing scientific literature, may commission scientific studies or polls on the issue, or request the public comments on their specific proposal. You really don't know anything about elected officials. Look at their backgrounds - how many of them can understand any of the sources that you propose? And then there's the assumption that they're just deciding between competing proposals. They're often creating proposals. > If they rely just on information provided by the richest, and which represents the interest of these richest groups, the politician's decisions will be suboptimal. Since they don't, that's irrelevant. (It's easy enough to see that they're influenced by groups that aren't "rich". See AARP, Greenpeace, etc.) It is important to remember that an elected official's job is to get elected and re-elected because anyone who doesn't do that doesn't do anything else either.
iwwr 15y ago
The point is that greed is dependable and stable. If you can depend on something that won't ruin the economy or society, then at least that works as a guarantee against worse excesses. And let's face it, even large corporations have a stake in maintaining a veneer of free enterprise (even though they tend toward cronyism). Consider that idealistic politicians are also capable of more damage than corrupt self-interested ones. The solution is not to seek for selfless idealists (who may be dangerous), but to remove power from politicians (to the extent possible) or at least to move decision making as close/locally as possible to the areas affected. In a way, those interested in politics to make money would be less interested in it for the pure sake of having (then preserving) political power. Here's one way to start: remove direct elections of senators. It makes lobbyists having to deal with 50 separate state legislatures rather than 100 individuals.
- william42 15y ago
  "Here's one way to start: remove direct elections of senators. It makes lobbyists having to deal with 50 separate state legislatures rather than 100 individuals." Lobbyists hear this and think "Oh boy! I get to deal with a set of elections that the average voter cares even less about than Congressional ones!" Personally, I'd go the other way around, and switch to a Westminster system where you only have one vote for federal office, meaning that plans like Obama's small-donor system would be more feasible for the elections that really matter: legislative ones.
- cobrausn 15y ago
  'It makes lobbyists having to deal with 50 separate state legislatures rather than 100 individuals.' This is precisely why I tend to be very libertarian at a federal level and not so much at the state level. I consider having a powerful single point of failure a flaw in the system, one I think the founders were well aware of.
- Florin_Andrei 15y ago
  > The point is that greed is dependable and stable. If you can depend on something that won't ruin the economy or society That statement shows exactly why "libertarianism" and all associated doctrines are built on a solid foundation of ignorance of human nature. There's nothing you could argue, really, when the other party is not even aware of the basic axioms.
jennyjitters 15y ago
Who's to say we can't "lobby" without throwing money at our representatives? Give information without bribing them to no end about which way they should vote. Instead they should LISTEN to both sides of an argument and make an informed decision rather than voting based on who will give them the most money.
nextparadigms 15y ago
Maybe not lobbying per se, just banning corporations from donating money to them. Money is not speech.

kandu 15y ago

When considering a decision, elected officials may consult existing scientific literature, may commission scientific studies or polls on the issue, or request the public comments on their specific proposal. There are plenty of information sources to inform them. If they rely just on information provided by the richest, and which represents the interest of these richest groups, the politician's decisions will be suboptimal.

dazzawazza 15y ago
Agreed, I wouldn't advocate just taking the opinion of the richest. Nor would I advocate just taking the opinion of scientists as important as their work is. It would be nice if we lived in a simple world but most of what politicians consider has no simple answer and there are diverse opinions that should guide them. Industry is just one of them. For example, lets look at public health. It would be stupid to look at public health issues without asking pharmaceutical companies what they think. It would be equally stupid to sit at the table and think they are not trying to make money. It would be equally stupid to not ask scientist, public health officials and the public. It seems reasonable to me that the pharma companies would employ specialist PR people to deal with legislation. It does not seem reasonable to me that in order to stay elected individuals need to raise millions of dollars to fight for what they believe and are thus open to bribery. Fix that and lobbying no longer matters. All businesses exist to make money. That is their sole goal. If you know that then there can be a reasonable outcome. BTW: All western democracies are struggling with Lobbying. Only the US has got in to the state where it appears that lobbying has the upper hand (although many would argue the UK is close).
damoncali 15y ago
You can sort through thousands of opinions, or you can organize them. Organzied groups of similar thinking folks are what the media calls "special interest groups" or "lobbyists". Now, quick - find me some scientific literature on a 1031 real estate exchange (for example). Then tell me what you think of them. How long did that take? How confident are you that you understand the issue? Now do that for 1,000,000 more issues of equal or greater complexity. Lobbyists are a necessary and good part of democracy.
- Flenser 15y ago
  Lobbyists are a necessary and good part of democracy. They just shouldn't be able to give politicians money.
  - twoodfin 15y ago
    A lobbyist can give a candidate for Federal election the same amount as you or I: $2,500.
    - nealmydataorg 15y ago
      There are other ways presidential candidates get more than 2,500 from a person. Please check out http://mydataorganizer.com/fund.html http://mydataorganizer.com/fund.html You can search for the donors who donated at least 30,000 . There are about 1000 people who donated more than 30,000 each for the 2012 US Presidential election.
- ypcx 15y ago
  Lobbyists are a necessary and good part of... ...getting 90% of your money stolen by those who have money. I hope you have absolutely no damn idea how delusional you are. Lobbyism is the cancer of this society and of this planet, and it will destroy it if not stopped. It's a simple equation: do you know what you get, if you add an "interest group", less than 100% systemic transparency, and give it some time? The best term for the result is "organized crime".
anamax 15y ago
> When considering a decision, elected officials may consult existing scientific literature, may commission scientific studies or polls on the issue, or request the public comments on their specific proposal. You really don't know anything about elected officials. Look at their backgrounds - how many of them can understand any of the sources that you propose? And then there's the assumption that they're just deciding between competing proposals. They're often creating proposals. > If they rely just on information provided by the richest, and which represents the interest of these richest groups, the politician's decisions will be suboptimal. Since they don't, that's irrelevant. (It's easy enough to see that they're influenced by groups that aren't "rich". See AARP, Greenpeace, etc.) It is important to remember that an elected official's job is to get elected and re-elected because anyone who doesn't do that doesn't do anything else either.

iwwr 15y ago

The point is that greed is dependable and stable. If you can depend on something that won't ruin the economy or society, then at least that works as a guarantee against worse excesses. And let's face it, even large corporations have a stake in maintaining a veneer of free enterprise (even though they tend toward cronyism). Consider that idealistic politicians are also capable of more damage than corrupt self-interested ones. The solution is not to seek for selfless idealists (who may be dangerous), but to remove power from politicians (to the extent possible) or at least to move decision making as close/locally as possible to the areas affected. In a way, those interested in politics to make money would be less interested in it for the pure sake of having (then preserving) political power. Here's one way to start: remove direct elections of senators. It makes lobbyists having to deal with 50 separate state legislatures rather than 100 individuals.

william42 15y ago
"Here's one way to start: remove direct elections of senators. It makes lobbyists having to deal with 50 separate state legislatures rather than 100 individuals." Lobbyists hear this and think "Oh boy! I get to deal with a set of elections that the average voter cares even less about than Congressional ones!" Personally, I'd go the other way around, and switch to a Westminster system where you only have one vote for federal office, meaning that plans like Obama's small-donor system would be more feasible for the elections that really matter: legislative ones.
cobrausn 15y ago
'It makes lobbyists having to deal with 50 separate state legislatures rather than 100 individuals.' This is precisely why I tend to be very libertarian at a federal level and not so much at the state level. I consider having a powerful single point of failure a flaw in the system, one I think the founders were well aware of.
Florin_Andrei 15y ago
> The point is that greed is dependable and stable. If you can depend on something that won't ruin the economy or society That statement shows exactly why "libertarianism" and all associated doctrines are built on a solid foundation of ignorance of human nature. There's nothing you could argue, really, when the other party is not even aware of the basic axioms.

jennyjitters 15y ago

Who's to say we can't "lobby" without throwing money at our representatives? Give information without bribing them to no end about which way they should vote. Instead they should LISTEN to both sides of an argument and make an informed decision rather than voting based on who will give them the most money.

nextparadigms 15y ago

Maybe not lobbying per se, just banning corporations from donating money to them. Money is not speech.