3 ms·
I think that’s the opposite of how to think about it: groups with money are going to lobby no matter what, because there’s simply no way those groups won’t want
by acdha 3y ago
I think that’s the opposite of how to think about it: groups with money are going to lobby no matter what, because there’s simply no way those groups won’t want to influence what’s happening. Budgeting to hire people who report to the congress person costs a little bit (by national government standards) upfront but it avoids all of those conflicts of interest and pushes things out of the shadows into the government hiring process where there’s more of a paper trail and basic conflict of interest rules.
- jjjjj55555 3y agoI'm all for more transparency and less conflict of interest. But what you're saying is we still need to trust the congress person, otherwise they can just hire a list of names provided by the lobbyists.
- acdha 3y agoI’m saying that do this officially as a normal federal job would still be an improvement over them getting the same advice over drinks at the country club, and paying normal wages means non rich people can accept those jobs. Think about it this way: say you get your wish and we zero out the staff budget. The guys who were going to put their signature on the latest draft from ALEC are going to do it anyway because you don’t need advisors for that. The impact of not having those positions would fall on anyone who _isn’t_ just following the big lobbying groups - the staffers are the ones who are going to give them alternatives to consider and think about what they’re not hearing from the well-funded lobbying organizations.