10 ms·

Lobbyists butchered this legislation. Many of the suggested edits[1] by lobbyists to weaken the original - made it into the bill verbatim [2]. How do New Yorker

• kyrra 3y ago
  Most lawmakers are lawyers. Meaning most of the time when they are writing laws in things, they are not th experts on such things. That the purpose of public comment periods, Publix hearings, and lobbyists being able to help craft laws. Now, this seems to be a failure where there were not protests raised to this amendments or the lawmakers ignored such things. Either way, the point of lobbyists is to allow industry experts to provide input. If there is nothing wrong with their suggestions, I don't see a problem with verbatim including of their wording. (I disagree with how the NY law was changed, but there are reasons lobbying exists).
  • bordercases 3y ago
    How would you approach thinking about this in a way which makes the lawyers culpable rather than an acceptable part of the status quo?
    • bawolff 3y ago
      Are you really asking someone how they would rephrase their statement so it expresses a different point of view? Traditionally in an debate, it is your responsibility to convince the other side of your view. You can't just get the other side to make your argument for you.
      • bordercases 3y ago
        I'm assuming that this wasn't a debate but a matter of open minded thinking.
  • RugnirViking 3y ago
    > the point of lobbyists ??? There is no "point" to lobbyists, its literally a guy paying to play. Take any industry expert from any industry and unless they themselves are a lobbyist I can near guarantee they would be happier if lobbying was illegal with very harsh punishment
    • hutzlibu 3y ago
      "if lobbying was illegal with very harsh punishment" I suppose you mean professional lobbying, with the purpose of influencing laws to make money? Because when a environmental group tries to block some dirty mining project for example, than this is also lobbying. It is just people using influence. You cannot really make that illegal. You can force the parties involved for transparency and punish bribery, but you cannot make it illegal for people to talk to politicians. Even when it is done "professional". The problem in reality is, that when you look closely, in effect lots of lobbying is indeed bribery. (most of the indirect kind, like informal promising lucrative jobs after their terms are over, or giving overpaid talks). And that is and remains illegal.
      • blitzar 3y ago
        When you write a letter to your congressman ... lobbying.
      • triska 3y ago
        So far, I have never before seen an environment group trying to block a mining project referred to as "lobbying". Is the term really that generally used in practice?
        • pedrosorio 3y ago
          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying “Lobbying, which usually involves direct, face-to-face contact in cooperation with support staff that may not meet directly face-to-face, is done by many types of people, associations and organized groups, including individuals on a personal level in their capacity as private citizens, it is also practiced by corporations in the private sector serving their own interests, by non-profits and non-governmental organizations in the voluntary sector, by fellow legislators or government officials influencing each other through legislative affairs (legislative assistance) in the public sector, and by advocacy groups (interest groups).”
  • mxkopy 3y ago
    > Most lawmakers are lawyers. Whatever they are they should be representing the people first. If that involves learning more about whatever they're in charge of, then they should do that, since that's what we pay them to do. Plato said our kings should be philosophers, but what we have are sophists.
  • contravariant 3y ago
    Likewise programmers are not experts on the things they write programs for so it is acceptable for them to just do the bare minimum of translating business requirements into code and see what bugs pop up. Right?
    • Karunamon 3y ago
      Programmers usually have documented acceptance criteria to meet, and those criteria are usually not up to them. Poor analogy.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• frankfrankfrank 3y ago
  Most people don’t care and definitely don’t pay nearly as close attention as should be required to have the right to vote, let alone those who are payed massive amounts of money to manipulate corrupted politicians. Corruption is now or at the very least is well on its way to becoming systemic.
  • javajosh 3y ago
    I wish HN would add a new reply button, "It's hopeless and people don't care and its only going to get worse" because it would save a great deal of time for everyone involved.
    • creativenolo 3y ago
      Maybe instead of reply people should just submit and comply?
    • moffkalast 3y ago
      Well the ubiquity of it doesn't make it any less true.
      • javajosh 3y ago
        It's never been less true. Humans have never been more capable of coherent action, and this fact has not been lost on the sociopathic no-upper-limit-to-greed manipulator types who've done well in this nascient internet with its aging, nostalgic noobs. The modern zeitgeist is dominated by the heat from a thousand battles happening in the info-sphere, fought by PR mercenaries and state-sponsored labs duking it out. They must win their battle because that is what they are paid to do, and saying the word "externality" is a good way to get fired. But. If we can act coherently on one way, we can do so in another, and I take great hope in that fact.
        • hatethissite42 3y ago
          [flagged]
• InCityDreams 3y ago
  >How do New Yorkers feel about unelected parties writing their laws? Oh no, not the gdpr again?
• _2uwr 3y ago
  [dead]
• ezequiel-garzon 3y ago
  I'm quite sure lobbying played a role with these changes, but the first source is not official.
• dev_tty01 3y ago
  > How do New Yorkers feel about unelected parties writing their laws? I'm all for right to repair laws, but I would hate to see a law concerning even slightly technical topics written only by elected parties. It would be a disaster. The legislators approved the editing of the laws and voted for the text as written. They are responsible and should be held accountable.
  • TimTheTinker 3y ago
    Laws written by lobbyists are an even worse disaster. The legislators' job is to represent their constituents, not those who pay enough to tell them what to legislate.
    • balls187 3y ago
      Elected officials who don't at least appear to represent their constituents do not remain elected for long.
  • balls187 3y ago
    > I'm all for right to repair laws, but I would hate to see a law concerning even slightly technical topics written only by elected parties. It would be a disaster. Specific to the US. They're rarely if ever written by elected officials directly. Rather legislative aids do the bulk of the authoring and reading of bills along with input from lobbyists. Laws may be problematic due to the unfamiliarity the authors/sponsors have with technical details and nuances but overwhelmingly the difficulty lies in creating legislature that cannot be interpreted in any other way than it's intention when challenged by an army of highly paid and highly skilled attorneys.
  • XajniN 3y ago
    > They are responsible and should be held accountable. No, an elected official cannot be punished for voting.
    • dev_tty01 3y ago
      Of course they can. They can be voted out of office at the next election.
• robertlagrant 3y ago
  Sorry - how can lobbyists do this? Are they part of the writing process?
• zx8080 3y ago
  Hey, why so negative! Lobbying is a hard work requiring coordination, expensive lawyers and tons of money. It's the only layer of protection for the society from a thoughtless legislation! /s