8 ms·

In The States, it's an actual constitutional right. I won't try to justify how positive the role is or could be. However, the First Amendment to the U.S. Cons

In The States, it's an actual constitutional right. I won't try to justify how positive the role is or could be. However, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." A lobbyist's literal job is "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ysofunny 3y ago
we gotta redraw the relationships between government, people, THE people, and business/corporations which behave like people but aren't actually individuals all as part of a renegiotiation of what "the public" actually means given that we have now digital internet, which forces a re-evaluation of what it evens means to "be in public" it's like there's two publics: digital (or cyber or virtual) and physical (in real world), but our laws are not aware of this??? dunno
- notquitetrue 3y ago
  Say my friends and I own a business that will be affected by something Congress is considering. So we hire a lobbyist to go inform the politicians about that. How is that not people exercising their First Amendment rights? Our livelihood depends on what they do. It is a major part of my life. It seems like your view is that you are only “people” when you’re not engaged in economic production, that human beings only exist in leisure.
  - zmgsabst 3y ago
    There two situations: 1. You and your friends hire that lobbyist with your private funds. 2. The corporation as an entity hires the lobbyist. They’re saying the second should be illegal and it’s unclear how your personal rights are impacted by that.
    - notquitetrue 3y ago
      The corporation is the legal embodiment of our joint interests. It is the only reasonable place to put the lobbying efforts. The silly thing you propose would in fact be workable for a small number of owners like this hypothetical, but how would a public corporation with diffuse ownership engage with the government under this proposal? It’s really no different than a company defending itself in court. A legislative or regulatory proposal can be just as confiscatory or punitive, or have as many unexpected consequences, as a lawsuit. In both cases, the business needs to lawyer up and represent its interests.
      - lucianbr 3y ago
        > The corporation is the legal embodiment of our joint interests. Would you stand by this statement when the corporation is caught doing some illegal evil thing, like denying employers their rights, or damaging the environment? Even if you would, most shareholders of large corporations don't. They suddenly discover being a shareholder is a very "at arms length" thing. Might work nicely if corporations were "the embodiment" at all times, or at no times. But selectively, it is quite bad.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        notquitetrue 3y ago
        If you intentionally undercapitalize a business to avoid foreseeable liabilities, the courts can pierce the corporate veil. Otherwise, limited liability is thought to provide the necessary incentives for widespread equity ownership and investment and desirable economic risk taking. In any case, limited liability is not a constitutional right and could be modified or abolished. Free speech and freedom to petition the government are guaranteed rights though. The government can’t just circumvent the first amendment by making waiver of those rights so economically necessary that every business has to do it to be competitive. The courts don’t buy that logic nor should they.
      - hilbert42 3y ago
  - hilbert42 3y ago
    Because you are now exercising more power than one person is normally able to do so in democracy, you, your company and friends now have a distinct advantage in influencing policy that normal citizens cannot exercise. This is very relevant if your company is benefitting you and your friends at the expence of other citizens—which, unfortunately, is an all too common occurrence. The bigger your company gets the more money you are able to put into lobbying and the more this distorts the democratic process. Big Business, especially Big Tech, is damaging our democracies beyond recognition. This is why this barring of Amazon by the EC is to be welcomed.
    - notquitetrue 3y ago
      Fwiw I think the bigger issue is that existing businesses are overrepresented relative to the businesses that don’t exist yet, or that would exist if rules were changed in a way contrary to the interests of some existing businesses.
      - hef19898 3y ago
        So, kind of like a weird pro-life take on businesses then? Seriously so, why would you priorotize some potential future business over an existing one? To pamper founders?
        notquitetrue 3y ago
        No, the idea is that existing businesses will lobby for the government to prop them up. Politicians are inclined to think it’s reasonable to protect jobs and such. But maybe if they let the business fail, what rises from the ashes would be even better.
        6510 3y ago
        I don't know any examples but someone explained some pulling up the ladder trick: An existing business you can implement nice things gradually over a long time and have them written into law. It seems very nice but the future business will have to implement everything before starting.
- ensignavenger 3y ago
  Corporations are owned by people. Should people not be allowed to combine together to petition the government together?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ysofunny 3y ago

we gotta redraw the relationships between government, people, THE people, and business/corporations which behave like people but aren't actually individuals all as part of a renegiotiation of what "the public" actually means given that we have now digital internet, which forces a re-evaluation of what it evens means to "be in public" it's like there's two publics: digital (or cyber or virtual) and physical (in real world), but our laws are not aware of this??? dunno

notquitetrue 3y ago
Say my friends and I own a business that will be affected by something Congress is considering. So we hire a lobbyist to go inform the politicians about that. How is that not people exercising their First Amendment rights? Our livelihood depends on what they do. It is a major part of my life. It seems like your view is that you are only “people” when you’re not engaged in economic production, that human beings only exist in leisure.
- zmgsabst 3y ago
  There two situations: 1. You and your friends hire that lobbyist with your private funds. 2. The corporation as an entity hires the lobbyist. They’re saying the second should be illegal and it’s unclear how your personal rights are impacted by that.
  - notquitetrue 3y ago
    The corporation is the legal embodiment of our joint interests. It is the only reasonable place to put the lobbying efforts. The silly thing you propose would in fact be workable for a small number of owners like this hypothetical, but how would a public corporation with diffuse ownership engage with the government under this proposal? It’s really no different than a company defending itself in court. A legislative or regulatory proposal can be just as confiscatory or punitive, or have as many unexpected consequences, as a lawsuit. In both cases, the business needs to lawyer up and represent its interests.
    - lucianbr 3y ago
      > The corporation is the legal embodiment of our joint interests. Would you stand by this statement when the corporation is caught doing some illegal evil thing, like denying employers their rights, or damaging the environment? Even if you would, most shareholders of large corporations don't. They suddenly discover being a shareholder is a very "at arms length" thing. Might work nicely if corporations were "the embodiment" at all times, or at no times. But selectively, it is quite bad.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - notquitetrue 3y ago
        If you intentionally undercapitalize a business to avoid foreseeable liabilities, the courts can pierce the corporate veil. Otherwise, limited liability is thought to provide the necessary incentives for widespread equity ownership and investment and desirable economic risk taking. In any case, limited liability is not a constitutional right and could be modified or abolished. Free speech and freedom to petition the government are guaranteed rights though. The government can’t just circumvent the first amendment by making waiver of those rights so economically necessary that every business has to do it to be competitive. The courts don’t buy that logic nor should they.
    - hilbert42 3y ago
- hilbert42 3y ago
  Because you are now exercising more power than one person is normally able to do so in democracy, you, your company and friends now have a distinct advantage in influencing policy that normal citizens cannot exercise. This is very relevant if your company is benefitting you and your friends at the expence of other citizens—which, unfortunately, is an all too common occurrence. The bigger your company gets the more money you are able to put into lobbying and the more this distorts the democratic process. Big Business, especially Big Tech, is damaging our democracies beyond recognition. This is why this barring of Amazon by the EC is to be welcomed.
  - notquitetrue 3y ago
    Fwiw I think the bigger issue is that existing businesses are overrepresented relative to the businesses that don’t exist yet, or that would exist if rules were changed in a way contrary to the interests of some existing businesses.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      So, kind of like a weird pro-life take on businesses then? Seriously so, why would you priorotize some potential future business over an existing one? To pamper founders?
      - notquitetrue 3y ago
        No, the idea is that existing businesses will lobby for the government to prop them up. Politicians are inclined to think it’s reasonable to protect jobs and such. But maybe if they let the business fail, what rises from the ashes would be even better.
      - 6510 3y ago
        I don't know any examples but someone explained some pulling up the ladder trick: An existing business you can implement nice things gradually over a long time and have them written into law. It seems very nice but the future business will have to implement everything before starting.
ensignavenger 3y ago
Corporations are owned by people. Should people not be allowed to combine together to petition the government together?