3 ms·
No, it's more like refusing to describe as "lobbying" the behavior that became legal after Citizens United v. FEC. It seems wild to just, "oh it's legal and fin
by plagiarist 3y ago
No, it's more like refusing to describe as "lobbying" the behavior that became legal after Citizens United v. FEC. It seems wild to just, "oh it's legal and fine," when at least one justice involved in the 5-4 ruling was accepting huge gifts from billionaires.
I'm sure plenty of what you'd consider corruption in Russia is both obviously corrupt as well as de facto legal.
- gruez 3y ago> No, it's more like refusing to describe as "lobbying" the behavior that became legal after Citizens United v. FEC. You realize that the word "lobbying" isn't limited to activities that occur in the US? It's a generic english word. Moreover, "lobbying" includes any sort of influence operations, not just the ones you hate that were legal after Citizens United v. FEC. As I said earlier, trying to redefine "lobbying" to mean "influence operations that I oppose, like what corporations are doing in the US" is sloppy writing and playing fast and loose with existing definitions.
- plagiarist 3y agoWe all understand the distinction they wish to make, and your strawman arguments trying to recast corrupt behavior as "stuff I don't like" doesn't change any of that.