3 ms·

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 John

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.

johnnyanmac 2y ago
"neutral" is doing a lot of heavy lifting and I apologize for that. Let me recontextualize it to this: a proper lobbyists should be speaking in their own interests, not necessarily as a paid actor for a corporation. Paying someone a full time job to more or less woo over politicians as an envoy carries a bunch of financial perversions that leads to this very conversation. My "neutral" comment should refer to my proposed forums. I feel people in such forums should be relatively neutral and able to compile arguments from multiple perspectives. If lawyers and reps can't do this, it makes sense to lean on a subject matter expert. But that expert should not be speaking for themselves in such a context. They should be doing what I imagined a rep to do: read a lot of different viewpoints and compile it for the lawmaker. >99% of lobbying is exactly what you describe: boring emails, phone calls, technical essays and testimonials. Sure, I imagine we're mostly focusing on the 1%, but it's a very powerful 1% (as usual). Enough to spoil the barrel and require reform. It rarely takes a consensus of bad to regulate the bad.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  >a proper lobbyists should be speaking in their own interests, not necessarily as a paid actor for a corporation. Im very confused by this. What line are you drawing between the interest of the lobbyist and that of the corporation? They are one and the same. The lobbyist is the representitive the the company or interest group. who is at risk of perversions? surely not the lobbyist? Im also not sure what you mean by forums. The place where the information is collected and sorter is the office and mind of the representative. Are you thinking that representative should all have to go through a 3rd party expert placed between them and their constituents? Who would pay this expert? If the politician pays them, what is the difference between using this third party and not? Is the idea that the expert (who has their own biases) would be be better suited to balance opinions?
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    >What line are you drawing between the interest of the lobbyist and that of the corporation? They are one and the same. Financial incentive, basically. It's a blurry line but there's definitely a difference between a collective group of citizens demanding X law, and a person who's full time job is to coax a politican to make such a decision. Especially with today's workforce, most of us literally don't have time to do that. It's human nature to bond with someone you spend a lot of time talking to, so it's hard to define that line. But I don't think these "gift" policies are doing much to deter such attempts at neutrality. >who is at risk of perversions? surely not the lobbyist? The spirit of the law. The pitch for democracy is 'vote for what matters', but the grease of a few people with enough time on their hands can overwrite that. That should be corrected somehow. I'm not confident it will, but there should be more checks and balances against such workarounds. >Im also not sure what you mean by forums. The place where the information is collected and sorter is the office and mind of the representative. You said above earlier that they lack the time and expertise to be that office and mind, right? I'm just proposing a way to be informed without it mostly being influenced by corporations who can afford the time to The forum is merely an ideal. Something that still happens with town halls, but nowhere near as often as before (at least, not in my region). The rep themself may not have time to do this regularly, but an envoy can help collect such information. >Are you thinking that representative should all have to go through a 3rd party expert placed between them and their constituents If they can't physically do it themselves, there should be some alternatives. Not everything needs to be thoroughly fact checked (another ideal but overkill), and some is just opinion. But I'd hope there'd be some experts for stuff like tax reform (things people are biased against) or environment (things people simply may lack technical details for). And hopefully that economist isn't also biased for corporate tax cuts, nor environmentalist biased to keep petroleum flowing. That's part of why things slowed down. >Who would pay this expert? We already do? I'm sure the government has both available, entire administrations dedicated to some (hopefully they aren't shut down). If they aren't there, it'd be far from the worst use of a contractor/consultant I've seen. >Is the idea that the expert (who has their own biases) would be be better suited to balance opinions? Ideally, yes. You can't stop all biases, incompetencies, and corruption. But we can take baby steps.

johnnyanmac 2y ago

"neutral" is doing a lot of heavy lifting and I apologize for that. Let me recontextualize it to this: a proper lobbyists should be speaking in their own interests, not necessarily as a paid actor for a corporation. Paying someone a full time job to more or less woo over politicians as an envoy carries a bunch of financial perversions that leads to this very conversation. My "neutral" comment should refer to my proposed forums. I feel people in such forums should be relatively neutral and able to compile arguments from multiple perspectives. If lawyers and reps can't do this, it makes sense to lean on a subject matter expert. But that expert should not be speaking for themselves in such a context. They should be doing what I imagined a rep to do: read a lot of different viewpoints and compile it for the lawmaker. >99% of lobbying is exactly what you describe: boring emails, phone calls, technical essays and testimonials. Sure, I imagine we're mostly focusing on the 1%, but it's a very powerful 1% (as usual). Enough to spoil the barrel and require reform. It rarely takes a consensus of bad to regulate the bad.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
>a proper lobbyists should be speaking in their own interests, not necessarily as a paid actor for a corporation. Im very confused by this. What line are you drawing between the interest of the lobbyist and that of the corporation? They are one and the same. The lobbyist is the representitive the the company or interest group. who is at risk of perversions? surely not the lobbyist? Im also not sure what you mean by forums. The place where the information is collected and sorter is the office and mind of the representative. Are you thinking that representative should all have to go through a 3rd party expert placed between them and their constituents? Who would pay this expert? If the politician pays them, what is the difference between using this third party and not? Is the idea that the expert (who has their own biases) would be be better suited to balance opinions?
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  >What line are you drawing between the interest of the lobbyist and that of the corporation? They are one and the same. Financial incentive, basically. It's a blurry line but there's definitely a difference between a collective group of citizens demanding X law, and a person who's full time job is to coax a politican to make such a decision. Especially with today's workforce, most of us literally don't have time to do that. It's human nature to bond with someone you spend a lot of time talking to, so it's hard to define that line. But I don't think these "gift" policies are doing much to deter such attempts at neutrality. >who is at risk of perversions? surely not the lobbyist? The spirit of the law. The pitch for democracy is 'vote for what matters', but the grease of a few people with enough time on their hands can overwrite that. That should be corrected somehow. I'm not confident it will, but there should be more checks and balances against such workarounds. >Im also not sure what you mean by forums. The place where the information is collected and sorter is the office and mind of the representative. You said above earlier that they lack the time and expertise to be that office and mind, right? I'm just proposing a way to be informed without it mostly being influenced by corporations who can afford the time to The forum is merely an ideal. Something that still happens with town halls, but nowhere near as often as before (at least, not in my region). The rep themself may not have time to do this regularly, but an envoy can help collect such information. >Are you thinking that representative should all have to go through a 3rd party expert placed between them and their constituents If they can't physically do it themselves, there should be some alternatives. Not everything needs to be thoroughly fact checked (another ideal but overkill), and some is just opinion. But I'd hope there'd be some experts for stuff like tax reform (things people are biased against) or environment (things people simply may lack technical details for). And hopefully that economist isn't also biased for corporate tax cuts, nor environmentalist biased to keep petroleum flowing. That's part of why things slowed down. >Who would pay this expert? We already do? I'm sure the government has both available, entire administrations dedicated to some (hopefully they aren't shut down). If they aren't there, it'd be far from the worst use of a contractor/consultant I've seen. >Is the idea that the expert (who has their own biases) would be be better suited to balance opinions? Ideally, yes. You can't stop all biases, incompetencies, and corruption. But we can take baby steps.