3 ms·

Serving in Congress doesn't have to be a lifetime career either. We need to make lobbying illegal. There should be a mandatory retirement age for federal offici

Serving in Congress doesn't have to be a lifetime career either. We need to make lobbying illegal. There should be a mandatory retirement age for federal officials. Think about it. Why are pilots forced to retire from commercial service, but Diane Feinstein can be rolled around Capitol Hill like everything is fine? Federal officials should only be able to invest in blind trusts, instead of using their insider knowledge to publicly trade, see Mr. Pelosi.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> We need to make lobbying illegal This doesn't work in a democracy. If you're talking about paid lobbying, that can be done, but it largely serves to enfranchise the wealthy: when you donate to the EFF or ACLU and they lobby the Congress, they're paid lobbyists. If you can make in-person trips to D.C. with meetings set up, or better yet, have elected fly out to meet you, you don't want paid lobbyists--they're competition. Your other suggestions have legs. But "ban lobbying" means electeds aren't allowed to talk to anyone, which is obviously stupid.
- mpalmer 3y ago
  Not to mention that businesses lobbying Congress is not actually a bad thing ipso facto. It's the volume of speech- excuse me, money involved.
- blitzar 3y ago
  Far easier solution, elect some representatives that have actual moral fibre, backbone and enought of a brain to understand what they are voting for and won't sell out their neighbours (and themselves) for a steak dinner.
  - alephnerd 3y ago
    You can't actually sell yourself for that steak dinner. Accepting a fancy meal does count as a bribe. There are certain cases where you are allowed and not allowed to accept gifts. Just go to the House Ethics website to get the rules. If you mess around, you will get a knock on your door from the DoJ as plenty of sitting and past members are now learning.
    - blitzar 3y ago
      > past members are now learning Sounds like you can and they have.
      - alephnerd 3y ago
        And are now paying the consequences. Most people don't do it because being nailed by the DoJ sucks. They have a 99% conviction rate as they only take those cases to court they know they will win.
  - psunavy03 3y ago
    Great. Vote for one the next time. Guess who chooses the representatives?
    - blitzar 3y ago
      I did. It turns out everyone else voted for a 16 term a candidate who promised for the 16th time that they would make illegal the kind of corruption that they themselves observed first hand (and placed the envelope in their pocket) for the past 15 terms, this time they are going to bring real change.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > a 16 term a candidate who promised for the 16th time that they would make illegal the kind of corruption Out of curiosity, who was this? Corruption rarely ranks as a material issue in most races. If the bread-and-butter issues aren't in play, it's usually a culture/dignity contest.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > enought of a brain to understand what they are voting for You know what smart people do? Ask questions. Use their resources. In a day an elected might see a bill on restaurant staffing, closing a tax loophole only applicable to skyscrapers, an infrastructure project in Alaska, a military concern in Southeast Asia and a humanitarian plea from the Middle East. There is no moral fibre in pretending you can work each of those out from first principles; that’s simply hubris. Banning lobbying effectively says that member must refuse to meet with—while weighing those measures—the head of a restaurant union, the representative of the Alaskan community proximate to the project, anyone who has written a book or done research on the foreign areas of question, perhaps, by some peoples’ definitions, even the DoD. They must decide in a vacuum. That’s not only unreasonable, it’s a one-way road to groupthink.
    - blitzar 3y ago
      A principled person can eat the free steak dinner, listen to their pitch and tell them no all the same. > You know what smart people do? Ask questions. Use their resources. I would love to see more of this - as far as I can tell there is almost none of it going on. I am pro listening to all the voices, anti selecting based on the biggest donation. Between "vested interests" and voting along party lines I doubt many legislators could tell you what the subject of the bill they voted on 5 minutes ago was.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > principled person can eat the free steak dinner, listen to their pitch and tell them no all the same They would be in breach of the rules by accepting the free steak dinner [1]. I'm not saying there aren't electeds who are dumb enough to succumb to this. But they're low-hanging fruit for ambitious prosecutors. [1] https://ethics.house.gov/house-ethics-manual/gifts https://ethics.house.gov/house-ethics-manual/gifts
- alephnerd 3y ago
  ^^^ this 100%. One person's activist is another person's lobbyist. Lobbying is an efficient way to bring up issues to your elected representatives. Also, the pay for lobbyists (and also staffers) is kinda bleh tbh factoring YoE. A new grad SWE or PM can make more than a lobbyist who grinded as a staffer for a decade. Going from $30k to $150k is nice, but doing that after earning $30k for 10 years and then earning $150k in a city where CoL is higher than SF sucks.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> We need to make lobbying illegal This doesn't work in a democracy. If you're talking about paid lobbying, that can be done, but it largely serves to enfranchise the wealthy: when you donate to the EFF or ACLU and they lobby the Congress, they're paid lobbyists. If you can make in-person trips to D.C. with meetings set up, or better yet, have elected fly out to meet you, you don't want paid lobbyists--they're competition. Your other suggestions have legs. But "ban lobbying" means electeds aren't allowed to talk to anyone, which is obviously stupid.

mpalmer 3y ago
Not to mention that businesses lobbying Congress is not actually a bad thing ipso facto. It's the volume of speech- excuse me, money involved.
blitzar 3y ago
Far easier solution, elect some representatives that have actual moral fibre, backbone and enought of a brain to understand what they are voting for and won't sell out their neighbours (and themselves) for a steak dinner.
- alephnerd 3y ago
  You can't actually sell yourself for that steak dinner. Accepting a fancy meal does count as a bribe. There are certain cases where you are allowed and not allowed to accept gifts. Just go to the House Ethics website to get the rules. If you mess around, you will get a knock on your door from the DoJ as plenty of sitting and past members are now learning.
  - blitzar 3y ago
    > past members are now learning Sounds like you can and they have.
    - alephnerd 3y ago
      And are now paying the consequences. Most people don't do it because being nailed by the DoJ sucks. They have a 99% conviction rate as they only take those cases to court they know they will win.
- psunavy03 3y ago
  Great. Vote for one the next time. Guess who chooses the representatives?
  - blitzar 3y ago
    I did. It turns out everyone else voted for a 16 term a candidate who promised for the 16th time that they would make illegal the kind of corruption that they themselves observed first hand (and placed the envelope in their pocket) for the past 15 terms, this time they are going to bring real change.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > a 16 term a candidate who promised for the 16th time that they would make illegal the kind of corruption Out of curiosity, who was this? Corruption rarely ranks as a material issue in most races. If the bread-and-butter issues aren't in play, it's usually a culture/dignity contest.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > enought of a brain to understand what they are voting for You know what smart people do? Ask questions. Use their resources. In a day an elected might see a bill on restaurant staffing, closing a tax loophole only applicable to skyscrapers, an infrastructure project in Alaska, a military concern in Southeast Asia and a humanitarian plea from the Middle East. There is no moral fibre in pretending you can work each of those out from first principles; that’s simply hubris. Banning lobbying effectively says that member must refuse to meet with—while weighing those measures—the head of a restaurant union, the representative of the Alaskan community proximate to the project, anyone who has written a book or done research on the foreign areas of question, perhaps, by some peoples’ definitions, even the DoD. They must decide in a vacuum. That’s not only unreasonable, it’s a one-way road to groupthink.
  - blitzar 3y ago
    A principled person can eat the free steak dinner, listen to their pitch and tell them no all the same. > You know what smart people do? Ask questions. Use their resources. I would love to see more of this - as far as I can tell there is almost none of it going on. I am pro listening to all the voices, anti selecting based on the biggest donation. Between "vested interests" and voting along party lines I doubt many legislators could tell you what the subject of the bill they voted on 5 minutes ago was.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > principled person can eat the free steak dinner, listen to their pitch and tell them no all the same They would be in breach of the rules by accepting the free steak dinner [1]. I'm not saying there aren't electeds who are dumb enough to succumb to this. But they're low-hanging fruit for ambitious prosecutors. [1] https://ethics.house.gov/house-ethics-manual/gifts https://ethics.house.gov/house-ethics-manual/gifts
alephnerd 3y ago
^^^ this 100%. One person's activist is another person's lobbyist. Lobbying is an efficient way to bring up issues to your elected representatives. Also, the pay for lobbyists (and also staffers) is kinda bleh tbh factoring YoE. A new grad SWE or PM can make more than a lobbyist who grinded as a staffer for a decade. Going from $30k to $150k is nice, but doing that after earning $30k for 10 years and then earning $150k in a city where CoL is higher than SF sucks.