5 ms·

One niggly point I feel like making: When a lawmaker needs technical information about a proposal, they have to ask an industry professional. That industry pro

One niggly point I feel like making: When a lawmaker needs technical information about a proposal, they have to ask an industry professional. That industry professional may be paid to be there, and offers complementary research services to the lawmaker. (Or they may volunteer their time). This is lobbying, and oftentimes it's a good thing! I briefly worked for a lobbyist for a fisheries organization - he was paid by a fishing association to answer calls and put together reports about what sort of damage various laws were going to do to fish stock or fisherman's earnings for a particular region of Alaska. But it definitely creates a conflict of interest if only one side has someone there or that side is completely up-gunned. When a nonprofit group pays for political activities, I could see why someone might refer to it all as "lobbying". But if a lawmaker needs research or opinion from an industry professional, they are not going to call up someone from a "dark money" PAC when they can just get someone from Comcast on the line directly and all the free resources they might make available.

ftth_finland 2y ago
… or the lawmakers could (gasp!) do their damn jobs themselves and do their own research instead of relying on moneyed interests.
- pasc1878 2y ago
  No - the lawmaker is a generalist and does not understand fully the issues for a particular proposal so they need a brief preferably from both sides. For example could you suggest the correct law for dealing with the environmental impact of a new building? If not where would you get the information from? Lawmakers do not have time to become experts in everything they deal with.
  - ftth_finland 2y ago
    Lawmakers being generalists does not preclude them commissioning their own research. Just being briefed on an issue from both sides isn’t sufficient, they could both be wrong.
    - digging 2y ago
      Unclear what exactly you're asking here. The critical point is that lawmakers must not be tasked with doing their own research manually. It's not biologically possible for a person to become an expert on every topic, and even experts disagree. A real improvement would be a better framework for soliciting expert opinions to avoid bias/corruption, but I don't know exactly what that would look like.
      - ftth_finland 2y ago
        There are entire government departments dedicated to statistics, research and analysis. How about lawmakers avail themselves to these services, instead of relying on moneyed interests?
    - parineum 2y ago
      > commissioning their own research. With what money?
      - ftth_finland 2y ago
        Are you suggesting that lawmakers who control the whole budget, legislative taxes and have entire government departments at their disposal are short on money?
        parineum 2y ago
        Given the current budget deficit, yes. Moreover, should a lawmaker be able to spend as much money as they want on "research"? Oh hey, look at that, turns out this research firm that employs my son is the perfect firm for this topic!
        ftth_finland 2y ago
        Surely you must be joking? The government entity that makes all the laws and decides how the money is spent, can’t allocate funds for their core purpose? Individual lawmakers may not want to, but they can if they wish to. There are already government departments that can be used and believe it or not, there are actually people who can write public tenders without undue favoritism. A single lawmaker should obviously not have an unlimited budget, but the legislature as a whole should have access to sufficient funds to make laws fit for purpose.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - asadotzler 2y ago
    Lawmakers have a staff and that can include domain experts in the areas they're involved in legislation, either permanent or contract or a staffer can consult with any non-commercial experts if they're stumped. This "they can't do it so they have to trust Comcast" is bullshit.
    - pasc1878 2y ago
      Lawmakers cover all areas and don't have enough resources to cover all. Nowhere have I suggested that you have to trust Comcast - yes they can brief but so should the opposition. It is then up to the lawmaker to some compromise between the briefs.
    - pasc1878 2y ago
      Lawmakers cover all areas and don't have enough resources to cover all. Nowhere have I suggested that you have to trust Comcast - yes they can brief but so should the opposition. It is then up to the lawmaker to some compromise between the briefs. Actually this is how most management decisions are made. Other people brief the decision maker and the decision maker then makes choices between the,m. The decision maker is only an expert in decision making and not necessarily the details. There will be exceptions for many readers of this board as the decision make acts more like a dictator as they are an expert in the necessary field.
- legitster 2y ago
  In the fisheries case, that would mean all the fish in North America would be dead. I'm not even joking. No senator is going to bother funding research for a fishery that is an afterthought in their district. A more pertinent example would be encryption. It is only through extensive industry lobbying that lawmakers have not mandated backdoors yet. Every single interest is moneyed. Ultimately it's still a democracy and the lawmaker's job is to get votes, not run a multi-discipline research team.
  - ftth_finland 2y ago
    Perhaps politicians who do not understand a thing should not be allowed to make decisions about it?
    - legitster 2y ago
      Are you trolling or is this a serious position? Should we roll back every traffic law, consumer protection, safety standard, science funding, civic policing, or national defense law ever written?
      - ftth_finland 2y ago
        Don’t be silly, I never said anything about rolling back any laws. Please don’t try to put words into my mouth. Digressions aside, what value is there in allowing an uninformed person to make impactful decisions on complex matters?
        legitster 2y ago
        > Digressions aside, what value is there in allowing an uninformed person to make impactful decisions on complex matters? Yes, all of the time. My entire life is making uninformed decisions. I am not a chef - I read reviews of restaurants. I am not a mechanic, I ask my mechanic for car advice. I am not a doctor, I pay them to tell me what's wrong and what treatments to take. Seeking out expertise is a paragon of making wise choices.
ItCouldBeWorse 2y ago
Yeah, its just- that the professionals with money have a building across the building- meanwhile the often more qualified- not company aligned professionals (CCC advice to german parliament comes to mind) are happily ignored. Maybe we can introduce something called a bouncer to the lobby, that gives the boot to bought voices. And a veto of the people to rule changes to the business order of the parliament.
smeg_it 2y ago
I agree with the conflict of interest, but the rest... not so much. First, I don't agree that lobbying is a good thing, in general. It's made our democracy more of a plutocracy<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index>. Citizen's united in 2010 really hurt us here. 'When a nonprofit group pays for political activities, I could see why someone might refer to it all as "lobbying"' --I think your confused here as trade groups are NOT non-profit groups. Non- profits can't do much lobbying<https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/lobbying https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/lobbying> Calling a Comcast lobbyist for information, is like me asking a car sales person, what car I should get. He will undoubtedly point to industry paid for studies that, for obvious reason's should be considered suspect at best 1. There are experts that aren't employed by companies or trade groups. 2. A success story for unbiased information has been the CBO. It's not perfect, but from everything I've read, it's done better than either party in it's predictions, overall. We should have more like it, for research, because that's what's needed and rely on other less biased experts.
- legitster 2y ago
  > I think your confused here as trade groups are NOT non-profit groups. Non- profits can't do much lobbying The point of the original article was about 501(c)(4) organizations running PR campaigns. And that they don't really have direct sway with lawmakers. That's what I was speaking to. I think the CBO is an amazing accounting organization, but even they rely on industry data organization and commercial forecasts and outside consultants. Regardless of how you feel about Citizen's United and PACs, any representative democracy is going to have lobbyists. The only thing that changes is who's allowed to have one, how you account for them, and what you call them.
- parineum 2y ago
  > First, I don't agree that lobbying is a good thing, in general. You don't think it's a good thing that I can call my congressman and express my opinions and concerns?
  - ftth_finland 2y ago

ftth_finland 2y ago

… or the lawmakers could (gasp!) do their damn jobs themselves and do their own research instead of relying on moneyed interests.

pasc1878 2y ago
No - the lawmaker is a generalist and does not understand fully the issues for a particular proposal so they need a brief preferably from both sides. For example could you suggest the correct law for dealing with the environmental impact of a new building? If not where would you get the information from? Lawmakers do not have time to become experts in everything they deal with.
- ftth_finland 2y ago
  Lawmakers being generalists does not preclude them commissioning their own research. Just being briefed on an issue from both sides isn’t sufficient, they could both be wrong.
  - digging 2y ago
    Unclear what exactly you're asking here. The critical point is that lawmakers must not be tasked with doing their own research manually. It's not biologically possible for a person to become an expert on every topic, and even experts disagree. A real improvement would be a better framework for soliciting expert opinions to avoid bias/corruption, but I don't know exactly what that would look like.
    - ftth_finland 2y ago
      There are entire government departments dedicated to statistics, research and analysis. How about lawmakers avail themselves to these services, instead of relying on moneyed interests?
  - parineum 2y ago
    > commissioning their own research. With what money?
    - ftth_finland 2y ago
      Are you suggesting that lawmakers who control the whole budget, legislative taxes and have entire government departments at their disposal are short on money?
      - parineum 2y ago
        Given the current budget deficit, yes. Moreover, should a lawmaker be able to spend as much money as they want on "research"? Oh hey, look at that, turns out this research firm that employs my son is the perfect firm for this topic!
        ftth_finland 2y ago
        Surely you must be joking? The government entity that makes all the laws and decides how the money is spent, can’t allocate funds for their core purpose? Individual lawmakers may not want to, but they can if they wish to. There are already government departments that can be used and believe it or not, there are actually people who can write public tenders without undue favoritism. A single lawmaker should obviously not have an unlimited budget, but the legislature as a whole should have access to sufficient funds to make laws fit for purpose.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- asadotzler 2y ago
  Lawmakers have a staff and that can include domain experts in the areas they're involved in legislation, either permanent or contract or a staffer can consult with any non-commercial experts if they're stumped. This "they can't do it so they have to trust Comcast" is bullshit.
  - pasc1878 2y ago
    Lawmakers cover all areas and don't have enough resources to cover all. Nowhere have I suggested that you have to trust Comcast - yes they can brief but so should the opposition. It is then up to the lawmaker to some compromise between the briefs.
  - pasc1878 2y ago
    Lawmakers cover all areas and don't have enough resources to cover all. Nowhere have I suggested that you have to trust Comcast - yes they can brief but so should the opposition. It is then up to the lawmaker to some compromise between the briefs. Actually this is how most management decisions are made. Other people brief the decision maker and the decision maker then makes choices between the,m. The decision maker is only an expert in decision making and not necessarily the details. There will be exceptions for many readers of this board as the decision make acts more like a dictator as they are an expert in the necessary field.
legitster 2y ago
In the fisheries case, that would mean all the fish in North America would be dead. I'm not even joking. No senator is going to bother funding research for a fishery that is an afterthought in their district. A more pertinent example would be encryption. It is only through extensive industry lobbying that lawmakers have not mandated backdoors yet. Every single interest is moneyed. Ultimately it's still a democracy and the lawmaker's job is to get votes, not run a multi-discipline research team.
- ftth_finland 2y ago
  Perhaps politicians who do not understand a thing should not be allowed to make decisions about it?
  - legitster 2y ago
    Are you trolling or is this a serious position? Should we roll back every traffic law, consumer protection, safety standard, science funding, civic policing, or national defense law ever written?
    - ftth_finland 2y ago
      Don’t be silly, I never said anything about rolling back any laws. Please don’t try to put words into my mouth. Digressions aside, what value is there in allowing an uninformed person to make impactful decisions on complex matters?
      - legitster 2y ago
        > Digressions aside, what value is there in allowing an uninformed person to make impactful decisions on complex matters? Yes, all of the time. My entire life is making uninformed decisions. I am not a chef - I read reviews of restaurants. I am not a mechanic, I ask my mechanic for car advice. I am not a doctor, I pay them to tell me what's wrong and what treatments to take. Seeking out expertise is a paragon of making wise choices.

ItCouldBeWorse 2y ago

Yeah, its just- that the professionals with money have a building across the building- meanwhile the often more qualified- not company aligned professionals (CCC advice to german parliament comes to mind) are happily ignored. Maybe we can introduce something called a bouncer to the lobby, that gives the boot to bought voices. And a veto of the people to rule changes to the business order of the parliament.

smeg_it 2y ago

I agree with the conflict of interest, but the rest... not so much. First, I don't agree that lobbying is a good thing, in general. It's made our democracy more of a plutocracy<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index>. Citizen's united in 2010 really hurt us here. 'When a nonprofit group pays for political activities, I could see why someone might refer to it all as "lobbying"' --I think your confused here as trade groups are NOT non-profit groups. Non- profits can't do much lobbying<https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/lobbying https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/lobbying> Calling a Comcast lobbyist for information, is like me asking a car sales person, what car I should get. He will undoubtedly point to industry paid for studies that, for obvious reason's should be considered suspect at best 1. There are experts that aren't employed by companies or trade groups. 2. A success story for unbiased information has been the CBO. It's not perfect, but from everything I've read, it's done better than either party in it's predictions, overall. We should have more like it, for research, because that's what's needed and rely on other less biased experts.

legitster 2y ago
> I think your confused here as trade groups are NOT non-profit groups. Non- profits can't do much lobbying The point of the original article was about 501(c)(4) organizations running PR campaigns. And that they don't really have direct sway with lawmakers. That's what I was speaking to. I think the CBO is an amazing accounting organization, but even they rely on industry data organization and commercial forecasts and outside consultants. Regardless of how you feel about Citizen's United and PACs, any representative democracy is going to have lobbyists. The only thing that changes is who's allowed to have one, how you account for them, and what you call them.
parineum 2y ago
> First, I don't agree that lobbying is a good thing, in general. You don't think it's a good thing that I can call my congressman and express my opinions and concerns?
- ftth_finland 2y ago