4 ms·
I recognize that Lawrence Lessig is beating this particular drum lately, and he's probably way smarter than me. However, I can't escape the idea that money is t
by JunkDNA 15y ago
I recognize that Lawrence Lessig is beating this particular drum lately, and he's probably way smarter than me. However, I can't escape the idea that money is the mother's milk of politics. It's like water in that it always finds a way through an obstacle, no matter how much you put in its way. If you eliminate overt lobbying, organizations will find a way to route around whatever laws are in place to lobby covertly, in ways that are likely much harder for the average person to detect.
Furthermore, I'd point out that, depending on the form of a ban on lobbying, the recent SOPA protest might not have been able to happen. Google might have been prevented from blacking out their page as would Wikipedia, lest they run afoul of anti-lobbying laws. That's something worth thinking about.
It's also not just the business sector that has lobbyists. There are tons of other groups. The Sierra Club and NRA are two biggies that come to mind. As an individual, it's much more efficient for me to throw in with one of those groups to ensure my interests are protected than it is to do it myself. Both are exceptionally effective at getting what they want because they spend all day keeping an eye on elected (and unelected) government officials and their continued existence hinges on their success.
I'm not arguing that we have to like this current situation, but it's hard for me to think of a better scenario that doesn't infringe on the rights of people to assemble as a group and voice their opininon via financial support, advertising, etc... Just because some of the time we don't personally like the result of lots of lobbyists, doesn't mean this is the root of all evil. In the end, all the money in the world isn't going to compel ordinary citizens to vote for someone who doesn't have their interests in mind. Exhibit A would be John Corzine who had an incredible fortune at his disposal in his reelection bid as governor of NJ and still lost to Chris Christie in 2009.
- peterb 15y agoBad laws are stopped when citizens participate in the political process. I think people are realizing this. Social networks like twitter, facebook, reddit and hacker news makes organizing easier. They also make it easier to hear alternative voices (e.g. Lessig, Tim O'Reilly) and criticisms of the mainstream media. The best way to handle bad actor lobbyists is to counter them with large numbers of organized, informed citizens who participate. I'm hoping Dodd was right and this was a watershed moment.
- chiaro 15y agoThe way I see it, the only reason political parties need such vast amounts of money is to spend it campaigning. If you reduce the need or ability to campaign, by restricting advertising or making voting compulsory, the demand for money is lessened, and some industry or another threatening to pull their support isn't such a big deal.
- simonbrown 15y agoHow would making voting compulsory reduce the need/ability to campaign?
- jbooth 15y agoA huge part of campaigning is either driving your own turnout (field operations) or suppressing the other guys' turnout (negative ads). Additionally, there's a philosophy of "suppress turnout in general and it will probably help me", which statistically is a good move for Republicans, most of the time. The argument is that compulsory voting would disincentivize these activities in favor of issues-based campaigning. I agree although I'm not sure I agree strongly enough to favor compulsory voting.
- Florin_Andrei 15y agoHow about "single payer" campaign funding? You want to contribute money to politics? Sure, feel free to pour some into this big barrel over here. The proceeds will be evenly divided between all candidates.
- simonbrown 15y agoAt the party level, or just to "politics" in general?
- Florin_Andrei 15y agoNation-wide.
- nextparadigms 15y agoTrue about Google, but if corporations were banned from donating in the first place, we wouldn't have this problem now.
- twoodfin 15y agoCorporations are banned from donating to individual Federal candidates and have been for several decades. Corporations are allowed (after Citizens United) to spend as much money as they want to get a political message out, but hey, that's what the New York Times does, too.
- Florin_Andrei 15y agoSo, I am forbidden from giving you money so that you could purchase a car. However, I am allowed to gift you the whole car.
- sirclueless 15y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee In particular read the section on Super PACs.
- andylei 15y ago> it's hard for me to think of a better scenario that doesn't infringe on the rights of people to assemble as a group and voice their opininon exactly. i'm not even clear on what behavior people are referring to when they say they want to ban lobbying. the act of lobbying is getting in front of politicians and convincing them to vote a certain way; is that what opponents of lobbying want to ban? when people across the internet banded together and called their representatives to fight soap, that was us lobbying! what would the text of a law banning lobbying even look like? all the reasonable pieces of legislation i can imagine are just campaign finance laws, which i'm mostly on board with, but unfortunately, it looks like we need a constitutional amendment to pass them.
- jakejake 15y agoI think perhaps banning the ability for politicians to gain financially would be the key. Lobbying is somewhat just group participation in a democracy. But funding political campaigns and making deals is where it can get evil and allow corporations influence that they shouldn't have.
- Florin_Andrei 15y ago> I'm not arguing that we have to like this current situation, but it's hard for me to think of a better scenario that doesn't infringe on the rights of people to assemble as a group and voice their opininon via financial support That's not a "right". That's a disease. Money in politics is the ultimate source of evil in western democracies. That is the beast that needs starving. That is the thing that needs systematic dismantling.
- JunkDNA 15y agoThe rights I was referencing are freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. My point is that it is extremely difficult to remove money from politics and still allow these. Let's say you and I want to start a movement to influence our representatives to get the money out of politics. How do we do that as a team if we can't pay for advertising, a website, adwords, phone calls, etc...? That stuff costs money. period. It's not enough to say candidates can't spend money directly, but private citizens can. That just pushes the candidate spending to shadow groups that are really just mouthpieces for the candidate (e.g. Super PACs). I'm asking this question genuinely. How do we do it and not make a hash of a bunch of other rights? I'd love to see a workable solution, the country would be better off if there could be one.
- Florin_Andrei 15y agoI never said it would be an easy transition. For starters, all political campaigns should be financed from a "single payer" system. You, Joe Schmoe, want to contribute money to politics? Sure, here's the big barrel, drop your cash in it, and we'll divide it up between all candidates.
- randonymous 15y agoLessig's point is a fair one. And it's not about banning lobbying. The problem is the same - money in congress is distorting its policies, agendas and outcomes. But Lessig's solution is to make the money = the people's voice. He recognizes that money will flow, and is in fact part of the process. But the idea is that you structure the system such that the candidates want to get monies from their constituents more than they want it from the big businesses. He proposes one way to realign these interests is to publicly fund elections - in some way or another.