2 ms·

To me, the point is that the current environment creates a problematic asymmetry between a small subset of interested parties (lobbyists and friends) and the gr

To me, the point is that the current environment creates a problematic asymmetry between a small subset of interested parties (lobbyists and friends) and the group that is arguably most important: the representative's constituents. Professional lobbying is almost universally backed by business interests, which often have no alignment whatsoever with the broader interests of constituents, and has no equalizing opposite force representing those constituents. In other words, if I want to become a "professional lobbyist" fighting for the needs of a community, the playing field is heavily slanted towards businesses/organizations with the money to buy the necessary influence. Campaign contributions are certainly a major part of this, and contribution rules would go a long way towards addressing this. But contributions aren't the only story, and professional lobbying still contributes to the asymmetry in its current form. If professional lobbying starts to meaningfully include groups that do so on behalf of "normal people", it becomes easier to argue that lobbying isn't the problem. That's not the current state of affairs, and it's unclear if it can/would be merely because of changes to campaign contribution rules.

gruez 3y ago
>Professional lobbying is almost universally backed by business interests, which often have no alignment whatsoever with the broader interests of constituents, and has no equalizing opposite force representing those constituents. In other words, well resourced parties (ie. businesses) have more resources to do stuff, like trying to influence politicians. I'm not denying this. But going back to the original question, does that mean we should ban any attempts at influencing politicians?
- haswell 3y ago
  > I'm not denying this. But going back to the original question, does that mean we should ban any attempts at influencing politicians? This sets up a binary position that doesn't need to exist. I don't think "ban any attempts at influencing politicians" is what I took away from the GP's comment/suggestion, nor do I think this is the automatic outcome of rules that restrict business interests. What I took away was something like this: the current environment involves obviously inflated influence from a subset of well-funded groups, and that won't change without changes to laws. GP presented an idea that would restrict that influence, but this is not synonymous with the binary outcome "ban all attempts at influencing politicians", nor do I think such a goal would even make sense, because what is the purpose of a representative if not to be be influenced by their constituents? The real question is whether or not it's acceptable that influence scales primarily based on wealth/friendship, and what changes we can make to level the playing field. I don't know if GP's $0.02 are the right policy positions, but I also don't think holding those positions equates to the binary position.

gruez 3y ago

>Professional lobbying is almost universally backed by business interests, which often have no alignment whatsoever with the broader interests of constituents, and has no equalizing opposite force representing those constituents. In other words, well resourced parties (ie. businesses) have more resources to do stuff, like trying to influence politicians. I'm not denying this. But going back to the original question, does that mean we should ban any attempts at influencing politicians?

haswell 3y ago
> I'm not denying this. But going back to the original question, does that mean we should ban any attempts at influencing politicians? This sets up a binary position that doesn't need to exist. I don't think "ban any attempts at influencing politicians" is what I took away from the GP's comment/suggestion, nor do I think this is the automatic outcome of rules that restrict business interests. What I took away was something like this: the current environment involves obviously inflated influence from a subset of well-funded groups, and that won't change without changes to laws. GP presented an idea that would restrict that influence, but this is not synonymous with the binary outcome "ban all attempts at influencing politicians", nor do I think such a goal would even make sense, because what is the purpose of a representative if not to be be influenced by their constituents? The real question is whether or not it's acceptable that influence scales primarily based on wealth/friendship, and what changes we can make to level the playing field. I don't know if GP's $0.02 are the right policy positions, but I also don't think holding those positions equates to the binary position.