5 ms·

Media focuses on the corrupt side of lobbying because it sells rage clicks. The fact is without the non-corrupt side of lobbying, the lawyers whom make up most

Media focuses on the corrupt side of lobbying because it sells rage clicks. The fact is without the non-corrupt side of lobbying, the lawyers whom make up most of the legislature wouldn't have the first clue how their legislation interacts with complex industry specific real world systems.

fafqg 3y ago
[flagged]
- stavros 3y ago
  The only thing worse than your spelling is your opinions on child labor.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - dang 3y ago
    [dead]
    - stavros 3y ago
      It was a joke. The joke was that he misspelled "minors" and wanted kids to work. I thought it might be too obscure, it looks like it is.
      - dang 3y ago
        Ok, I see. Sorry!
        stavros 3y ago
        No problem, I was thinking "nobody will get this" as I was writing it, but I figured the payoff would be big for someone who did get it. I didn't realize it might look like an attack, partly because it's such a random thing to say in a thread where kids aren't mentioned and the spelling is correct, but I was wrong.
buran77 3y ago
Lobbying in exchange for any kind of favor (money, influence, etc.) should be illegal. Why would you want to focus on the almost inconsequential lobbying "for free" regular people can do, instead of the society-changing lobbying "for money" that is accessible only to the advantage of a few? Lobbying for money is a form of legalized corruption, almost identical in form and function to the illegal one, except designed to protect those who already have a lot of money and power from any legal consequences.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  Hiring someone to lobby on my behalf is an important part of our political process. If there’s an issue I care about, my ability to show up at a random time in DC to lobby “for free” should not be my only recourse. If I donate money to the EFF or Louis Rossmann for a cause I care about, that should not block them from lobbying on my behalf. Everyone complains about professional lobbying that they don’t like. That’s hardly shocking.
  - LunaSea 3y ago
    People complain because it links your net worth to how much you are represented which is anti-democratic.
  - buran77 3y ago
    > Everyone complains about professional lobbying that they don’t like. I think you picked the laziest understanding of both the issue and my answer, and made my point in the process. I'm not talking about you paying someone to represent your ideas to lawmakers, regulators, judges, etc. but about paying those people to directly enact your interests. They're both big problems in their own way. Straight up buying laws or legal decisions happens even if the incentives move from the interest groups to the decision factors through so many lobbying laundromats that they look completely clean and disconnected. The other problem is not better. As you confirm, real representation in democracy is not with your vote but your donation power. Even when your chosen lobbyist isn't buying anything directly, just having a voice and representation takes money rather than a vote. The EFF or Louis Rossmann have to struggle so much to be heard because other people pay more to be louder. If you have problems being heard for money, imagine the people hoping to be heard for free. The large majority of people can only spend one vote every few years to choose a representation that a small minority will spend a lot of money to hijack: either drown out everyone else's voice, or directly purchase exactly what they want. If you can't see why "everyone complains" maybe you're too disconnected from the problem to even understand it.
LunaSea 3y ago
This is simply bullshit. Congress can simply bring people to testify in the open instead of cowering in the shadows like they do now.

fafqg 3y ago

[flagged]

stavros 3y ago
The only thing worse than your spelling is your opinions on child labor.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dang 3y ago
  [dead]
  - stavros 3y ago
    It was a joke. The joke was that he misspelled "minors" and wanted kids to work. I thought it might be too obscure, it looks like it is.
    - dang 3y ago
      Ok, I see. Sorry!
      - stavros 3y ago
        No problem, I was thinking "nobody will get this" as I was writing it, but I figured the payoff would be big for someone who did get it. I didn't realize it might look like an attack, partly because it's such a random thing to say in a thread where kids aren't mentioned and the spelling is correct, but I was wrong.

buran77 3y ago

Lobbying in exchange for any kind of favor (money, influence, etc.) should be illegal. Why would you want to focus on the almost inconsequential lobbying "for free" regular people can do, instead of the society-changing lobbying "for money" that is accessible only to the advantage of a few? Lobbying for money is a form of legalized corruption, almost identical in form and function to the illegal one, except designed to protect those who already have a lot of money and power from any legal consequences.

sokoloff 3y ago
Hiring someone to lobby on my behalf is an important part of our political process. If there’s an issue I care about, my ability to show up at a random time in DC to lobby “for free” should not be my only recourse. If I donate money to the EFF or Louis Rossmann for a cause I care about, that should not block them from lobbying on my behalf. Everyone complains about professional lobbying that they don’t like. That’s hardly shocking.
- LunaSea 3y ago
  People complain because it links your net worth to how much you are represented which is anti-democratic.
- buran77 3y ago
  > Everyone complains about professional lobbying that they don’t like. I think you picked the laziest understanding of both the issue and my answer, and made my point in the process. I'm not talking about you paying someone to represent your ideas to lawmakers, regulators, judges, etc. but about paying those people to directly enact your interests. They're both big problems in their own way. Straight up buying laws or legal decisions happens even if the incentives move from the interest groups to the decision factors through so many lobbying laundromats that they look completely clean and disconnected. The other problem is not better. As you confirm, real representation in democracy is not with your vote but your donation power. Even when your chosen lobbyist isn't buying anything directly, just having a voice and representation takes money rather than a vote. The EFF or Louis Rossmann have to struggle so much to be heard because other people pay more to be louder. If you have problems being heard for money, imagine the people hoping to be heard for free. The large majority of people can only spend one vote every few years to choose a representation that a small minority will spend a lot of money to hijack: either drown out everyone else's voice, or directly purchase exactly what they want. If you can't see why "everyone complains" maybe you're too disconnected from the problem to even understand it.

LunaSea 3y ago

This is simply bullshit. Congress can simply bring people to testify in the open instead of cowering in the shadows like they do now.