7 ms·

I'm still waiting for the day when we'll replace the word "lobbying" with "corruption".

jacquesm 3y ago
Agreed, that is exactly what it is. It's a huge stain on democracy and in many ways subverts it. Companies don't have the right to vote and should not be able to do an end-run around the electoral process with their money.
- Terretta 3y ago
  Lobbyists are just your duly capitalized representatives to your duly elected representatives.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > Companies don't have the right to vote and should not be able to do an end-run around the electoral process with their money. There's no difference between companies and people here; no one, spending their company's money or their own, should be able to influence solely through money. They only can because of corrupt state employees, who should be replaced.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    > There's no difference between companies and people here; no one, spending their company's money or their own, should be able to influence solely through money. There is because individuals are not normally the clients of lobbyists, nor do they - normally - approach politicians directly with money in hand except for some countries where campaign donations are a thing. They shouldn't be because they are effectively corruption but unsurprisingly countries where this practice is established never get around to abolishing it because it put the people who are in power in power in the first place. > They only can because of corrupt state employees, who should be replaced. If the state employees receive that money off the books then yes, but if it is structural it is not the employees that should be replaced but the system that should be replaced. And that is a much harder task. Because you could replace employees until the cows come home, if the system remains the same nothing will really change.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      > And that is a much harder task. Because you could replace employees until the cows come home, if the system remains the same nothing will really change. There are lots of things where we trust individuals to do a good job. If we can identify things as being the results of corruption via lobbying, why not fire them or prosecute them?
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        > If we can identify things as being the results of corruption via lobbying, why not fire them or prosecute them? That's an excellent question. In many places 'lobbying' is legal, technically it is supposedly to inform the clueless legislators about various interests. But in practice it very quickly turns into 'soft' corruption, meetings in holiday resorts (oh, do bring your family) and so on. Whatever lines are drawn the amount of money available to get around them is practically infinite and politicians (and civil servants) are not all equally good at determining when they are targeted and might be across the line before they realize it (and then it gets much harder to go back than to have never crossed it before). Occasionally people are terminated, and occasionally there are prosecutions. But there is a very large amount of information about who may have been involved in corruption and only a limited amount of prosecution and investigatory power so the bulk of these cases will end up being ignored.
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        > politicians (and civil servants) are not all equally good at determining when they are targeted and might be across the line before they realize it (and then it gets much harder to go back than to have never crossed it before). I don't think many people would get such a pass. The whole point of paying them from money taken from people's incomes is so they can be impartial. There's no point having them if they don't add value.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        > I don't think many people would get such a pass. You'd be surprised. Especially if the last review of the rules is a while ago or if they have been recently updated. People are sloppy, especially if they think nobody is looking and that it doesn't matter. > The whole point of paying them from money taken from people's incomes is so they can be impartial. That's the theory, but as the US supreme court proves that doesn't mean much. > There's no point having them if they don't add value. It's never that black and white except for the most extreme cases and those are the ones that in the end usually do make it to prosecution. Also note that in the EU different member states have entirely different views on what constitutes corruption and normality.
- andrekandre 3y ago
  > Companies don't have the right to vote it seems they do... https://www.businessinsider.com/some-cities-are-allowing-corporations-to-vote-in-local-elections-2023-7?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/some-cities-are-allowing-cor...
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Some cities are more idiotic than others, apparently, but in case it wasn't clear the context was general elections. Not that what you point out isn't a travesty and should be dealt with before someone figures out that you can create as many companies as you want.
michaelteter 3y ago
The better word is "informing". Lobbyists inform policymakers about perspectives of certain groups (those employing the lobbyists). It just happens that most lobbyists are paid by groups who are seeking to enrich themselves at the cost of everyone else. However, there are some lobbyists who work for organizations that attempt to guide policy that helps under-represented groups (like nature, animal welfare, human welfare). Those lobbyists are fewer and poorly paid (as their "clients" typically have little or no money), but they work hard to at least inform policymakers of their perspective.
- guerrilla 3y ago
  No, this is just more doublespeak that ignores what's actuallygoing on. Corruption is the correct word.
  - sofixa 3y ago
    In the EU, lobbyists need to get registered. Here's a few examples of registered organisations that lobby the EU: * the Electronic Frontier Foundation https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/consultation/displaylobbyist.do?id=805637038375-01 https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/consultatio... * the Mozilla Foundation https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/consultation/displaylobbyist.do?id=133978448647-87 https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/consultatio... Do you think it's corruption when they inform the EU of the risks of legislation (like eIDAS) and fight against potential loopholes (successfully in the case of eIDAS)?
    - guerrilla 3y ago
      I think in general it is corruption. That's what 99% of lobbying is. Rare exceptions don't change that.
  - michaelteter 3y ago
    As my partner is an animal welfare lobbyist, I am qualified to say that not all lobbyists are corrupt or pedaling corruption.
rollcat 3y ago
Oh it is called corruption - when you're talking second or third world countries. Same with "expats" vs "immigrants".
- gruez 3y ago
  There's an objective difference between high corruption and low corruption countries though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index Let's not pretend that a slick lobbyist hired by vested interests to talk to representatives with no money changing hands is comparable to the stuff that goes down in high corruption countries, where there's literally briefcases full of cash given to politicians.
  - piva00 3y ago
    > Let's not pretend that a slick lobbyist hired by vested interests to talk to representatives with no money changing hands is comparable to the stuff that goes down in high corruption countries, where there's literally briefcases full of cash given to politicians. That's just a make-up, parfumerie on top of the same exact concept: use money in some way to corrupt decision making. Just because in some countries it's done with a veneer of legitimacy, in a way that doesn't look as dirty and disgusting as "those other over there with their dirty hands full of bags of money", it's just corruption with a façade of high-class. It's still the same thing, just has more layers of indirection and make-up on top.
  - Lutger 3y ago
    You are being sarcastic right? > The CPI measures perception of corruption due to the difficulty of measuring absolute levels of corruption So the difference consists primarily in perception, the slickness of it all as you put it? How well we can hide corruption with a facade of legality and civility. Somehow the crude briefcase full of cash feels more honest and direct.
    - gruez 3y ago
      "a facade of legality and civility" is literally the point of rule of law. It's why if you detain someone it's a crime, but if the police do it it's normal law enforcement.
zajio1am 3y ago
Lobbying is just people or organizations making their case to politicians in a private way (e.g. meeting MP in their office) instead of a public way (e.g. putting an article to press).
- Lutger 3y ago
  That is what it is supposed to be. Offering a perspective someone said. In a michelin star restaurant, private resort full of prostitutes or after having donated substantial amounts of cash to their campaign ensuring their hold on power. Somehow it seems different when 'presenting the case' is accompanied by gifts and money.
  - mrmanner 3y ago
    > after having donated substantial amounts of cash to their campaign ensuring their hold on power This is the main problem, and there is a solution. If campaigns are financed by enough public money, donations have less power and can be regulated more heavily. Similarly, if individual politicians get enough from the state to feel secure even if voted out, we take away the power of the promise of a next job and can enforce a grace period before working on anything related.
0dayz 3y ago
You're throwing the baby with the water here. Lobbying I'd argue is an essential part of democracy because it allows groups of people that have a shared concern to come together and make their case to the politicians.
- xkcd1963 3y ago
  But that shouldn't come down to the money. If only the people who amassed huge amounts of money can influence there is no democracy.
  - 0dayz 3y ago
    Lobbying does not have to be done via donations. Otherwise I'm very curious how NGOs can lobby.
    - xkcd1963 3y ago
      What do you imply? To me it doesn't matter if you use a different word for monetary value, be it donation or something else, it comes down to the same, namely money.
      - 0dayz 3y ago
        No. Lobbying is not inherently money oriented.
- squarefoot 3y ago
  > ... groups of people that have a shared concern to come together and make their case to the politicians. That would be solved by referenda, with their results and number of people affected being presented to the politicians so that they must deal with the problem. Lobbying as it is now in many countries (possibly all of them) has nothing to do with that and to me is just legalized corruption.
  - mrmanner 3y ago

Agreed, that is exactly what it is. It's a huge stain on democracy and in many ways subverts it. Companies don't have the right to vote and should not be able to do an end-run around the electoral process with their money.

Terretta 3y ago
Lobbyists are just your duly capitalized representatives to your duly elected representatives.
robertlagrant 3y ago
> Companies don't have the right to vote and should not be able to do an end-run around the electoral process with their money. There's no difference between companies and people here; no one, spending their company's money or their own, should be able to influence solely through money. They only can because of corrupt state employees, who should be replaced.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  > There's no difference between companies and people here; no one, spending their company's money or their own, should be able to influence solely through money. There is because individuals are not normally the clients of lobbyists, nor do they - normally - approach politicians directly with money in hand except for some countries where campaign donations are a thing. They shouldn't be because they are effectively corruption but unsurprisingly countries where this practice is established never get around to abolishing it because it put the people who are in power in power in the first place. > They only can because of corrupt state employees, who should be replaced. If the state employees receive that money off the books then yes, but if it is structural it is not the employees that should be replaced but the system that should be replaced. And that is a much harder task. Because you could replace employees until the cows come home, if the system remains the same nothing will really change.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > And that is a much harder task. Because you could replace employees until the cows come home, if the system remains the same nothing will really change. There are lots of things where we trust individuals to do a good job. If we can identify things as being the results of corruption via lobbying, why not fire them or prosecute them?
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      > If we can identify things as being the results of corruption via lobbying, why not fire them or prosecute them? That's an excellent question. In many places 'lobbying' is legal, technically it is supposedly to inform the clueless legislators about various interests. But in practice it very quickly turns into 'soft' corruption, meetings in holiday resorts (oh, do bring your family) and so on. Whatever lines are drawn the amount of money available to get around them is practically infinite and politicians (and civil servants) are not all equally good at determining when they are targeted and might be across the line before they realize it (and then it gets much harder to go back than to have never crossed it before). Occasionally people are terminated, and occasionally there are prosecutions. But there is a very large amount of information about who may have been involved in corruption and only a limited amount of prosecution and investigatory power so the bulk of these cases will end up being ignored.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        > politicians (and civil servants) are not all equally good at determining when they are targeted and might be across the line before they realize it (and then it gets much harder to go back than to have never crossed it before). I don't think many people would get such a pass. The whole point of paying them from money taken from people's incomes is so they can be impartial. There's no point having them if they don't add value.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        > I don't think many people would get such a pass. You'd be surprised. Especially if the last review of the rules is a while ago or if they have been recently updated. People are sloppy, especially if they think nobody is looking and that it doesn't matter. > The whole point of paying them from money taken from people's incomes is so they can be impartial. That's the theory, but as the US supreme court proves that doesn't mean much. > There's no point having them if they don't add value. It's never that black and white except for the most extreme cases and those are the ones that in the end usually do make it to prosecution. Also note that in the EU different member states have entirely different views on what constitutes corruption and normality.
andrekandre 3y ago
> Companies don't have the right to vote it seems they do... https://www.businessinsider.com/some-cities-are-allowing-corporations-to-vote-in-local-elections-2023-7?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/some-cities-are-allowing-cor...
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Some cities are more idiotic than others, apparently, but in case it wasn't clear the context was general elections. Not that what you point out isn't a travesty and should be dealt with before someone figures out that you can create as many companies as you want.

michaelteter 3y ago

The better word is "informing". Lobbyists inform policymakers about perspectives of certain groups (those employing the lobbyists). It just happens that most lobbyists are paid by groups who are seeking to enrich themselves at the cost of everyone else. However, there are some lobbyists who work for organizations that attempt to guide policy that helps under-represented groups (like nature, animal welfare, human welfare). Those lobbyists are fewer and poorly paid (as their "clients" typically have little or no money), but they work hard to at least inform policymakers of their perspective.

guerrilla 3y ago
No, this is just more doublespeak that ignores what's actuallygoing on. Corruption is the correct word.
- sofixa 3y ago
  In the EU, lobbyists need to get registered. Here's a few examples of registered organisations that lobby the EU: * the Electronic Frontier Foundation https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/consultation/displaylobbyist.do?id=805637038375-01 https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/consultatio... * the Mozilla Foundation https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/consultation/displaylobbyist.do?id=133978448647-87 https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/consultatio... Do you think it's corruption when they inform the EU of the risks of legislation (like eIDAS) and fight against potential loopholes (successfully in the case of eIDAS)?
  - guerrilla 3y ago
    I think in general it is corruption. That's what 99% of lobbying is. Rare exceptions don't change that.
- michaelteter 3y ago
  As my partner is an animal welfare lobbyist, I am qualified to say that not all lobbyists are corrupt or pedaling corruption.

rollcat 3y ago

Oh it is called corruption - when you're talking second or third world countries. Same with "expats" vs "immigrants".

gruez 3y ago
There's an objective difference between high corruption and low corruption countries though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index Let's not pretend that a slick lobbyist hired by vested interests to talk to representatives with no money changing hands is comparable to the stuff that goes down in high corruption countries, where there's literally briefcases full of cash given to politicians.
- piva00 3y ago
  > Let's not pretend that a slick lobbyist hired by vested interests to talk to representatives with no money changing hands is comparable to the stuff that goes down in high corruption countries, where there's literally briefcases full of cash given to politicians. That's just a make-up, parfumerie on top of the same exact concept: use money in some way to corrupt decision making. Just because in some countries it's done with a veneer of legitimacy, in a way that doesn't look as dirty and disgusting as "those other over there with their dirty hands full of bags of money", it's just corruption with a façade of high-class. It's still the same thing, just has more layers of indirection and make-up on top.
- Lutger 3y ago
  You are being sarcastic right? > The CPI measures perception of corruption due to the difficulty of measuring absolute levels of corruption So the difference consists primarily in perception, the slickness of it all as you put it? How well we can hide corruption with a facade of legality and civility. Somehow the crude briefcase full of cash feels more honest and direct.
  - gruez 3y ago
    "a facade of legality and civility" is literally the point of rule of law. It's why if you detain someone it's a crime, but if the police do it it's normal law enforcement.

zajio1am 3y ago

Lobbying is just people or organizations making their case to politicians in a private way (e.g. meeting MP in their office) instead of a public way (e.g. putting an article to press).

Lutger 3y ago
That is what it is supposed to be. Offering a perspective someone said. In a michelin star restaurant, private resort full of prostitutes or after having donated substantial amounts of cash to their campaign ensuring their hold on power. Somehow it seems different when 'presenting the case' is accompanied by gifts and money.
- mrmanner 3y ago
  > after having donated substantial amounts of cash to their campaign ensuring their hold on power This is the main problem, and there is a solution. If campaigns are financed by enough public money, donations have less power and can be regulated more heavily. Similarly, if individual politicians get enough from the state to feel secure even if voted out, we take away the power of the promise of a next job and can enforce a grace period before working on anything related.

0dayz 3y ago

You're throwing the baby with the water here. Lobbying I'd argue is an essential part of democracy because it allows groups of people that have a shared concern to come together and make their case to the politicians.

xkcd1963 3y ago
But that shouldn't come down to the money. If only the people who amassed huge amounts of money can influence there is no democracy.
- 0dayz 3y ago
  Lobbying does not have to be done via donations. Otherwise I'm very curious how NGOs can lobby.
  - xkcd1963 3y ago
    What do you imply? To me it doesn't matter if you use a different word for monetary value, be it donation or something else, it comes down to the same, namely money.
    - 0dayz 3y ago
      No. Lobbying is not inherently money oriented.
squarefoot 3y ago
> ... groups of people that have a shared concern to come together and make their case to the politicians. That would be solved by referenda, with their results and number of people affected being presented to the politicians so that they must deal with the problem. Lobbying as it is now in many countries (possibly all of them) has nothing to do with that and to me is just legalized corruption.
- mrmanner 3y ago