4 ms·

Banning lobbying is banning free speech. Anyone should be able to lobby the government.

by briandear 3y ago

derefr 3y ago
Who's this "anyone"? Why are monopolies suddenly people?
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Why are monopolies suddenly people? Who else besides people would control a monopoly?
  - tarboreus 3y ago
    If the people running the monopoly want to lobby the government on their own time, uncompensated, that certainly sounds fine. It's lobbying on behalf of the monopoly that is an issue.
    - tekknik 3y ago
      How do you avoid compensating someone on salary while lobbying on their own time?
- throw0101c 3y ago
  > Who's this "anyone"? Why are monopolies suddenly people? Corporations have always been legal persons, going back to the Middle Ages (guilds, chartered cities, universities) and even Ancient Rome: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person
  - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
    What's amazing is how many people misunderstand this, and think the government treats a legal person as a full flesh and blood person.
  - dghlsakjg 3y ago
    Corporations are legal entities separate from people. They do not have the same rights and responsibilities as humans.
    - throw0101c 3y ago
      > They do not have the same rights and responsibilities as humans. Opinions and precedents vary: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person#Rights_and_responsibilities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person#Rights_and_respon...
      - dghlsakjg 3y ago
        From the article you linked: "There are therefore two kinds of legal entities: human and non-human. In law, a human person is called a natural person (sometimes also a physical person), and a non-human person is called a juridical person" No where in that article does it cite a jurisdiction where a non-human legal entity has the same rights and responsibilities as a human. My point still stands that a human has a different, albeit overlapping, set of rights and responsibilities in comparison to other legal entities.
spicebox 3y ago
Why? What is the benefit to the public good of allowing corporations to use their massive resources to shape legislation to benefit them at the expense of the general public?
- dan-robertson 3y ago
  Generally industries are much better than random politicians at predicting the consequences of rules. Obviously it isn’t good if the rules being made are entirely in the interests of incumbents, but it’s also bad if the rules don’t make sense or ignore the realities of some industry or technology. Even ignoring lobbying, you see regulators reaching out for comments from industry about new rules. Though perhaps lobbying (as practiced or in general) should still be considered inappropriate.
  - spicebox 3y ago
    > Generally industries are much better than random politicians at predicting the consequences of rules This is true but when people are talking about restricting lobbying the kind of lobbying they want to restrict isn’t companies saying “hey this policy isn’t good for us”. It’s companies spending millions of dollars on donations and advertising to force politicians to make laws that benefit them. It’s possible to restrict the second kind without impacting the first kind, for example by implementing spending limits.
    - dan-robertson 3y ago
      The article linked at the top of this thread is the former thing. But maybe that’s not relevant. Aren’t the rules on donations made by companies pretty restricted in the US? Isn’t it normally that companies persuade their employees to give to some company pac (as a deduction from their paycheck) and that pac then makes maximum campaign contributions to various politicians. (The limits on both contributions to the pac and to campaigns are pretty small. On the order of $5k. It seems unlikely to matter much to a politician but maybe they do care). Maybe you’re not talking about the US or maybe I’m wrong or there is some other mechanism I don’t understand
pessimizer 3y ago
People should be able to say what they want. They shouldn't be able to pay politicians for favorable treatment. If that's somehow required for free speech, we should get rid of free speech.
- refurb 3y ago
  I think the problem here is that people don't know what lobbying means. It doesn't mean paying politicians. Lobbying is simply that - petitioning your representative for change (or no change). No money changes hands, you literally just get time with your representative to argue your case. When a company spends $1M on lobbying, it's $1M given to a lobbying firm to put together a strategy and a pitch to representatives. If you want fund raising laws to change, then say that.
  - tremon 3y ago
    I think the problem here is that people don't know what lobbying means. I think many people are aware of what lobbying means. They're just using standard motte-and-bailey tactics to make it seem like they're defending something innocuous (petitioning the government) while they're really defending bribery and corruption.
  - xp84 3y ago
    > it's $1M given to a lobbying firm to put together a strategy and a pitch to representatives The Strategy: Hey $senator, wouldn't you like $500,000 donated to your re-election campaign? Of course, we would need to know that you share our commitment to Clean Coal! (I assume the lobbyists themselves get to pocket their share of the $1M, but don't know what the markup is on bribes)
    - refurb 3y ago
      But bribery is already illegal. I mean, EFF uses fundraising to lobby the government for privacy protection. Should we ban that?
      - 3y ago

Banning lobbying is banning free speech. Anyone should be able to lobby the government.

derefr 3y ago

Who's this "anyone"? Why are monopolies suddenly people?

dragonwriter 3y ago
> Why are monopolies suddenly people? Who else besides people would control a monopoly?
- tarboreus 3y ago
  If the people running the monopoly want to lobby the government on their own time, uncompensated, that certainly sounds fine. It's lobbying on behalf of the monopoly that is an issue.
  - tekknik 3y ago
    How do you avoid compensating someone on salary while lobbying on their own time?
throw0101c 3y ago
> Who's this "anyone"? Why are monopolies suddenly people? Corporations have always been legal persons, going back to the Middle Ages (guilds, chartered cities, universities) and even Ancient Rome: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  What's amazing is how many people misunderstand this, and think the government treats a legal person as a full flesh and blood person.
- dghlsakjg 3y ago
  Corporations are legal entities separate from people. They do not have the same rights and responsibilities as humans.
  - throw0101c 3y ago
    > They do not have the same rights and responsibilities as humans. Opinions and precedents vary: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person#Rights_and_responsibilities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person#Rights_and_respon...
    - dghlsakjg 3y ago
      From the article you linked: "There are therefore two kinds of legal entities: human and non-human. In law, a human person is called a natural person (sometimes also a physical person), and a non-human person is called a juridical person" No where in that article does it cite a jurisdiction where a non-human legal entity has the same rights and responsibilities as a human. My point still stands that a human has a different, albeit overlapping, set of rights and responsibilities in comparison to other legal entities.

spicebox 3y ago

Why? What is the benefit to the public good of allowing corporations to use their massive resources to shape legislation to benefit them at the expense of the general public?

dan-robertson 3y ago
Generally industries are much better than random politicians at predicting the consequences of rules. Obviously it isn’t good if the rules being made are entirely in the interests of incumbents, but it’s also bad if the rules don’t make sense or ignore the realities of some industry or technology. Even ignoring lobbying, you see regulators reaching out for comments from industry about new rules. Though perhaps lobbying (as practiced or in general) should still be considered inappropriate.
- spicebox 3y ago
  > Generally industries are much better than random politicians at predicting the consequences of rules This is true but when people are talking about restricting lobbying the kind of lobbying they want to restrict isn’t companies saying “hey this policy isn’t good for us”. It’s companies spending millions of dollars on donations and advertising to force politicians to make laws that benefit them. It’s possible to restrict the second kind without impacting the first kind, for example by implementing spending limits.
  - dan-robertson 3y ago
    The article linked at the top of this thread is the former thing. But maybe that’s not relevant. Aren’t the rules on donations made by companies pretty restricted in the US? Isn’t it normally that companies persuade their employees to give to some company pac (as a deduction from their paycheck) and that pac then makes maximum campaign contributions to various politicians. (The limits on both contributions to the pac and to campaigns are pretty small. On the order of $5k. It seems unlikely to matter much to a politician but maybe they do care). Maybe you’re not talking about the US or maybe I’m wrong or there is some other mechanism I don’t understand

pessimizer 3y ago

People should be able to say what they want. They shouldn't be able to pay politicians for favorable treatment. If that's somehow required for free speech, we should get rid of free speech.

refurb 3y ago
I think the problem here is that people don't know what lobbying means. It doesn't mean paying politicians. Lobbying is simply that - petitioning your representative for change (or no change). No money changes hands, you literally just get time with your representative to argue your case. When a company spends $1M on lobbying, it's $1M given to a lobbying firm to put together a strategy and a pitch to representatives. If you want fund raising laws to change, then say that.
- tremon 3y ago
  I think the problem here is that people don't know what lobbying means. I think many people are aware of what lobbying means. They're just using standard motte-and-bailey tactics to make it seem like they're defending something innocuous (petitioning the government) while they're really defending bribery and corruption.
- xp84 3y ago
  > it's $1M given to a lobbying firm to put together a strategy and a pitch to representatives The Strategy: Hey $senator, wouldn't you like $500,000 donated to your re-election campaign? Of course, we would need to know that you share our commitment to Clean Coal! (I assume the lobbyists themselves get to pocket their share of the $1M, but don't know what the markup is on bribes)
  - refurb 3y ago
    But bribery is already illegal. I mean, EFF uses fundraising to lobby the government for privacy protection. Should we ban that?
    - 3y ago