3 ms·

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 represe

by 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?
  - xp84 3y ago
    Not a poli sci expert so forgive if this is naïve, but if I were forced to make the policy my first proposal would be: • Entities which receive more than half their funding from any non-human "persons" (corporations, other legal entities) or where more than 50% of the funding comes from the top 500 donors, or who have fewer than 10,000 unique donors (in the past 4 years) overall, cannot provide any funds to any candidate's campaign, nor run ads mentioning, hinting, or suggesting any candidate or party, nor any other BS shenanigans astroturfing PACs legally do today. • The rest of the entities who don't fall under the above, still cannot make contributions, but can run ads, assuming the ad starts and ends with the phrase "(TRUE LEGAL NAME OF ORG) [supports/opposes] (name of politician, bill, or ballot measure)" Politicians taking meetings and listening to ideas based on who is paying for their (re-)election campaigns is corruption. They don't represent corporations, they represent all of the people in their state or district. When they take a meeting from a campaign donor, they are saying that only wealthy people's voices matter to them. It's corruption. Legal and yet still morally depraved.

by refurb 3y ago

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?
- xp84 3y ago
  Not a poli sci expert so forgive if this is naïve, but if I were forced to make the policy my first proposal would be: • Entities which receive more than half their funding from any non-human "persons" (corporations, other legal entities) or where more than 50% of the funding comes from the top 500 donors, or who have fewer than 10,000 unique donors (in the past 4 years) overall, cannot provide any funds to any candidate's campaign, nor run ads mentioning, hinting, or suggesting any candidate or party, nor any other BS shenanigans astroturfing PACs legally do today. • The rest of the entities who don't fall under the above, still cannot make contributions, but can run ads, assuming the ad starts and ends with the phrase "(TRUE LEGAL NAME OF ORG) [supports/opposes] (name of politician, bill, or ballot measure)" Politicians taking meetings and listening to ideas based on who is paying for their (re-)election campaigns is corruption. They don't represent corporations, they represent all of the people in their state or district. When they take a meeting from a campaign donor, they are saying that only wealthy people's voices matter to them. It's corruption. Legal and yet still morally depraved.