5 ms·

I mean, I'm opposed to lobbying and bribes as a whole. However, if lobbying is just a sad reality of modern society, I'm pretty much forced to not be bothered

I mean, I'm opposed to lobbying and bribes as a whole. However, if lobbying is just a sad reality of modern society, I'm pretty much forced to not be bothered by lobbying for a cause that I am in favor of (crackdowns on monopolies). How much has Ticketmaster spent on lobbying in the past?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> I'm opposed to lobbying and bribes as a whole You’re conflating wildly-different subjects. This article is about gifts, which are personal and the closest thing in our system to bribes. (They become bribes if traded for official acts. This article seems to describe bribery.) Lobbying is a blanket term for communicating with electeds. If you’re against lobbying you’re against being able to call your elected. Lobbying, i.e. bottom-up political communication, is inherent to democracy.
- smegsicle 2y ago
  they aren't wildly different the overlap between 'gifts' and 'lobbying' is significant, and the latter term is often used euphemistically to describe exactly that overlap
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > overlap between 'gifts' and 'lobbying' is significant Source? Most federal electeds are prohibited from accepting gifts from lobbyists [1]. (Meals are capped at $50. Yes, most electeds take these limits seriously.) > is often used euphemistically to describe exactly that overlap This is a reflection of the state of civic education in our country. Someone who cannot differentiate lobbying (paid to reimbursed to pro bono) from gifts from bribery is almost entirely lobotomised from being able to wield one of the most basic civic powers: assembly. [1] https://ethics.house.gov/content/gifts/prohibited-lobbyist-gifts https://ethics.house.gov/content/gifts/prohibited-lobbyist-g...
    - bluGill 2y ago
      What is the value of me telling you [some very specific economic indicator] is [good/bad]? Technically this is public information you can get from many sources, but you call the lobbyist in that industry because they know. One the one hand the information is free, on the other hand to understand what all those numbers mean and give a quick summary is very valuable.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > on the other hand to understand what all those numbers mean and give a quick summary is very valuable A Taylor Swift concert ticket from Ticketmaster obviously isn’t in that grey area.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        The proper and intended purpose of lobbyists is to communicate information that is not readily available or understood. Ideally we want our electors to have information so that they can make informed decisions about the law. If new legislation would bankrupt bluegill inc., you would want your legislator to know that is a consequence. The lobbyists is who tells them that. Law is made in an information poor environment where few of the consequences are understood. I think that most of the people that object to lobbying don't understand this.
        johnnyanmac 2y ago
        I think we understand this. I think we also understand that current lobbyists are not neutral actors, like how they (ideally) would be in a court proceeding. ideally, politicians would seek out or be invited to a forum to help understand these issues. a boring forums with as many bells and whistles as some random meetup, not some fancy ball with subsidized dinners. But at this point I think it's just easier to punish "gifts" more harshly.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Lobbyist arent supposed to be neutral actors, and we shouldn't want or expect them to be. It is the politician that is expected to be neutral. The goal of Johnny's lobbyist is to communicate Johnny's concerns. The same as if you were to write a letter to your congressman - you are sharing your thoughts and insights. >ideally, politicians would seek out or be invited to a forum to help understand these issues. a boring forums with as many bells and whistles as some random meetup, not some fancy ball with subsidized dinners. But at this point I think it's just easier to punish "gifts" more harshly. 99% of lobbying is exactly what you describe: boring emails, phone calls, technical essays and testimonials.
- solardev 2y ago
  Well, there's also the professional lobbying class that wine and dine the reps and probably know them on a first name basis, and are supported by multi million dollar war chests from multinational mega corps. That's what most people think of when they say lobbying, not Joe Schmoe writing an email or two every four years.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    I know someone who used to think that, but the company all but forced her to become a lobbyist anyway. She quickly discovered that most of her job is being a free expert on topics the company is in but doesn't have a political position on. Sometimes her job is to kill some bill the company doesn't like, but most of the time she is the expert on what is really going on in the real world.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      >Sometimes her job is to kill some bill the company doesn't like, Wish I could fund a bill hitman. >but most of the time she is the expert on what is really going on in the real world. Sure, but they are inevitably influenced on what to say or not say by the ones funding her. Conflict of interest. I'm guessing if she finds out about some inconvinient truth that's she's not necessarily free to lobby for the truth. She's representing a company, after all.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > there's also the professional lobbying class that wine and dine the reps and probably know them on a first name basis In many cases because they once worked for them. (I tend to support a cooling-off period for electeds and staffers.) On wining and dining, the limits are usually $50. If you go to the D.C. lobbying haunts, you’ll notice that number coming up in specials. Most lobbying is actually advising the client, not the elected. > what most people think of when they say lobbying, not Joe Schmoe writing an email or two every four years What about the ACLU or EFF? I’m not arguing against your characterisation of the popular representation. I’m arguing that representation is wrong. To the absurd point that it disempowers those who hold it.
- Sankozi 2y ago
  Lobbying covers most of the corruption in the 1st world. Accepting gifts is risky, they are often forbidden or at least need to be reported. It is much easier to accept legal bribes - donations, speaker invitations, PAC support. Professional lobbying often includes legal knowledge that allows to offer such bribes legally.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Accepting gifts is risky, they are often forbidden or at least need to be reported Literally what this article is about. > legal bribes - donations, speaker invitations, PAC support You’re conflating wildly different things. Donations, to a campaign or a PAC, are not personal. These are money in politics. But they’re to a campaign and decently scrutinised. Speaking engagements are part of the revolving door that is much closer to gifts and, as you correctly point out, corruption.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> I'm opposed to lobbying and bribes as a whole You’re conflating wildly-different subjects. This article is about gifts, which are personal and the closest thing in our system to bribes. (They become bribes if traded for official acts. This article seems to describe bribery.) Lobbying is a blanket term for communicating with electeds. If you’re against lobbying you’re against being able to call your elected. Lobbying, i.e. bottom-up political communication, is inherent to democracy.

smegsicle 2y ago
they aren't wildly different the overlap between 'gifts' and 'lobbying' is significant, and the latter term is often used euphemistically to describe exactly that overlap
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > overlap between 'gifts' and 'lobbying' is significant Source? Most federal electeds are prohibited from accepting gifts from lobbyists [1]. (Meals are capped at $50. Yes, most electeds take these limits seriously.) > is often used euphemistically to describe exactly that overlap This is a reflection of the state of civic education in our country. Someone who cannot differentiate lobbying (paid to reimbursed to pro bono) from gifts from bribery is almost entirely lobotomised from being able to wield one of the most basic civic powers: assembly. [1] https://ethics.house.gov/content/gifts/prohibited-lobbyist-gifts https://ethics.house.gov/content/gifts/prohibited-lobbyist-g...
  - bluGill 2y ago
    What is the value of me telling you [some very specific economic indicator] is [good/bad]? Technically this is public information you can get from many sources, but you call the lobbyist in that industry because they know. One the one hand the information is free, on the other hand to understand what all those numbers mean and give a quick summary is very valuable.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > on the other hand to understand what all those numbers mean and give a quick summary is very valuable A Taylor Swift concert ticket from Ticketmaster obviously isn’t in that grey area.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      The proper and intended purpose of lobbyists is to communicate information that is not readily available or understood. Ideally we want our electors to have information so that they can make informed decisions about the law. If new legislation would bankrupt bluegill inc., you would want your legislator to know that is a consequence. The lobbyists is who tells them that. Law is made in an information poor environment where few of the consequences are understood. I think that most of the people that object to lobbying don't understand this.
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        I think we understand this. I think we also understand that current lobbyists are not neutral actors, like how they (ideally) would be in a court proceeding. ideally, politicians would seek out or be invited to a forum to help understand these issues. a boring forums with as many bells and whistles as some random meetup, not some fancy ball with subsidized dinners. But at this point I think it's just easier to punish "gifts" more harshly.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Lobbyist arent supposed to be neutral actors, and we shouldn't want or expect them to be. It is the politician that is expected to be neutral. The goal of Johnny's lobbyist is to communicate Johnny's concerns. The same as if you were to write a letter to your congressman - you are sharing your thoughts and insights. >ideally, politicians would seek out or be invited to a forum to help understand these issues. a boring forums with as many bells and whistles as some random meetup, not some fancy ball with subsidized dinners. But at this point I think it's just easier to punish "gifts" more harshly. 99% of lobbying is exactly what you describe: boring emails, phone calls, technical essays and testimonials.
solardev 2y ago
Well, there's also the professional lobbying class that wine and dine the reps and probably know them on a first name basis, and are supported by multi million dollar war chests from multinational mega corps. That's what most people think of when they say lobbying, not Joe Schmoe writing an email or two every four years.
- bluGill 2y ago
  I know someone who used to think that, but the company all but forced her to become a lobbyist anyway. She quickly discovered that most of her job is being a free expert on topics the company is in but doesn't have a political position on. Sometimes her job is to kill some bill the company doesn't like, but most of the time she is the expert on what is really going on in the real world.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    >Sometimes her job is to kill some bill the company doesn't like, Wish I could fund a bill hitman. >but most of the time she is the expert on what is really going on in the real world. Sure, but they are inevitably influenced on what to say or not say by the ones funding her. Conflict of interest. I'm guessing if she finds out about some inconvinient truth that's she's not necessarily free to lobby for the truth. She's representing a company, after all.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > there's also the professional lobbying class that wine and dine the reps and probably know them on a first name basis In many cases because they once worked for them. (I tend to support a cooling-off period for electeds and staffers.) On wining and dining, the limits are usually $50. If you go to the D.C. lobbying haunts, you’ll notice that number coming up in specials. Most lobbying is actually advising the client, not the elected. > what most people think of when they say lobbying, not Joe Schmoe writing an email or two every four years What about the ACLU or EFF? I’m not arguing against your characterisation of the popular representation. I’m arguing that representation is wrong. To the absurd point that it disempowers those who hold it.
Sankozi 2y ago
Lobbying covers most of the corruption in the 1st world. Accepting gifts is risky, they are often forbidden or at least need to be reported. It is much easier to accept legal bribes - donations, speaker invitations, PAC support. Professional lobbying often includes legal knowledge that allows to offer such bribes legally.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Accepting gifts is risky, they are often forbidden or at least need to be reported Literally what this article is about. > legal bribes - donations, speaker invitations, PAC support You’re conflating wildly different things. Donations, to a campaign or a PAC, are not personal. These are money in politics. But they’re to a campaign and decently scrutinised. Speaking engagements are part of the revolving door that is much closer to gifts and, as you correctly point out, corruption.