5 ms·

I wonder how much it would take for private citizens to hire their own lobbyists? edit: in case this isn't glaringly obvious, the joke is that we do have our o

by blhack 14y ago

I wonder how much it would take for private citizens to hire their own lobbyists? edit: in case this isn't glaringly obvious, the joke is that we do have our own lobbyists. They're called congress. They're just horrible lobbyists.

incongruity 14y ago
I think the easiest route is for anyone who cares about these sorts of things is to fund groups like the EFF and the ACLU. I'm just finishing graduate school (and am thus kind of broke) but still have an automatic payment to the EFF setup every month and will probably start the same sort of donations to the ACLU as well.
AsylumWarden 14y ago
I also wonder if a group of people could get together and purchase their own x-ray vans and position them at the homes and offices of the politicians who support these vehicles. The vans are safe, right? And it is OK to use them on citizens, right? It'll be a fun experiment!
dclowd9901 14y ago
The fact that your joke wasn't glaringly obvious (and I had seriously contemplated how much it'd cost to hire lobbyists), says much more about the shitty system.
- zithtar 14y ago
  I know several Associates and Senior Associates at lobbying firms. A good state firm will run you $4-10k per month on a 1-year contract. Not sure about Federal but I'd imagine one of similar caliber would be 3-4x that. Now, this is in PA which has a relatively large, well-staffed and full-time legislature with (partisan politics aside) legislators who want to learn the issues and want to help their constituents. YMMV based on state.
incongruity 14y ago
Yeah, nope, not glaringly obvious, to me at least. Thanks for the clarification. I guess I can see your point, but I think, in general, lobbyists are thought of as external to the congressional establishment, despite the similarity in possible roles, such as you point out... well, at least that's the way it works in my head, fwiw.
crazygringo 14y ago
Oct 6, 2010: "American People Hire High-Powered Lobbyist To Push Interests In Congress" http://www.theonion.com/articles/american-people-hire-highpowered-lobbyist-to-push,18204/ http://www.theonion.com/articles/american-people-hire-highpo...
Useful_Idiot 14y ago
As far as I understand the American system, this is a false analogy: your Congressman 'lobbies' for interests within their core voting block. i.e. why your mid-west Congressman lobbies hard for corn subsidies, if a large percentage of her voting base are corn farmers. Given the "first past the post" nature of American politics, this can exclude up to 49% of your voting base before said Congressman has even been sworn in. To make this clearer: the way the system is set up, your Congressman isn't lobbying for any individual, they're lobbying for a percentage of the voting block that is sufficient to return them to Congress next vote. This is why campaigning on single issues is so common, and so successful for power-blocs such as the Christian Right. (This isn't to go into gerrymandering, which further skews the 'democratic' input of your system. If you didn't already know that only ~8-12 seats in Congress are actually contested in terms of party fealty, you really, really, really should do).
- MartinCron 14y ago
  a large percentage of her voting base are corn farmers There aren't really that many corn farmers out there. Maybe you meant "a large percentage of her campaign donors are corn farmers"?
- bigiain 14y ago
  "your Congressman 'lobbies' for interests within their core voting block. " This is where I think current "politics" is lagging many decades behind modern society. Politicians are fundamentally geographically defined. They get voted in (or out) by groups of people with no relationship with each other beyond happening to live nearby. That idea worked out fine when your village was your whole life, and it works OK for "big issues" that affect everyone (like taxation, education, military), but there are a lot of issues where there is more than enough public support to deserve representation but that support is not geographically localized enough for the current system to give the people concerned a voice. So many of the things I end up shouting at the television or newspapers about are in this category. What _I'd_ love to be able to vote for: A Congressman for The Internet A Congressman for Copyright and Patents A Congressman for Motorcyclists A Congressman for Citizens Rights WRT Government & Law Enforcement I'd like the opportunity to choose to vote for someone aligned with issues that concern _me_ instead of being assumed to be a "constituent" of an aspirant politician just because of where they and I happen to choose to live. Instead, the issues that concern _me_ are debated and voted on by people who don't give a damn because they know there's not enough geeks/musicians/inventors/entrepreneurs/motorcyclists/libertarians geographically clustered enough to make any difference at the polling booth, and so the only issues that ever get addressed are ones with a local enough aspect to risk having a likely effect on a city/state/federal elections outcome. Society has spread beyond having my circle of friends and acquaintances being "other people in my village" - and in the last 20 years the internet has magnified that change enormously, political and legal structures haven't changed to reflect that. (and may never - my circle of friends crosses national boundaries in ways that probably make my desires of how I'm personally politically represented impossible)
baddox 14y ago
> They're just horrible lobbyists. Are they really? I suspect a lot of representatives are successful largely due to their ability to get federal funds directed toward their districts. The point I would want to make isn't that representatives should be better at shuffling money around, but rather that the whole game shouldn't be about shuffling money around.

by blhack 14y ago

incongruity 14y ago

I think the easiest route is for anyone who cares about these sorts of things is to fund groups like the EFF and the ACLU. I'm just finishing graduate school (and am thus kind of broke) but still have an automatic payment to the EFF setup every month and will probably start the same sort of donations to the ACLU as well.

AsylumWarden 14y ago

I also wonder if a group of people could get together and purchase their own x-ray vans and position them at the homes and offices of the politicians who support these vehicles. The vans are safe, right? And it is OK to use them on citizens, right? It'll be a fun experiment!

dclowd9901 14y ago

The fact that your joke wasn't glaringly obvious (and I had seriously contemplated how much it'd cost to hire lobbyists), says much more about the shitty system.

zithtar 14y ago
I know several Associates and Senior Associates at lobbying firms. A good state firm will run you $4-10k per month on a 1-year contract. Not sure about Federal but I'd imagine one of similar caliber would be 3-4x that. Now, this is in PA which has a relatively large, well-staffed and full-time legislature with (partisan politics aside) legislators who want to learn the issues and want to help their constituents. YMMV based on state.

incongruity 14y ago

Yeah, nope, not glaringly obvious, to me at least. Thanks for the clarification. I guess I can see your point, but I think, in general, lobbyists are thought of as external to the congressional establishment, despite the similarity in possible roles, such as you point out... well, at least that's the way it works in my head, fwiw.

crazygringo 14y ago

Oct 6, 2010: "American People Hire High-Powered Lobbyist To Push Interests In Congress" http://www.theonion.com/articles/american-people-hire-highpowered-lobbyist-to-push,18204/ http://www.theonion.com/articles/american-people-hire-highpo...

Useful_Idiot 14y ago

As far as I understand the American system, this is a false analogy: your Congressman 'lobbies' for interests within their core voting block. i.e. why your mid-west Congressman lobbies hard for corn subsidies, if a large percentage of her voting base are corn farmers. Given the "first past the post" nature of American politics, this can exclude up to 49% of your voting base before said Congressman has even been sworn in. To make this clearer: the way the system is set up, your Congressman isn't lobbying for any individual, they're lobbying for a percentage of the voting block that is sufficient to return them to Congress next vote. This is why campaigning on single issues is so common, and so successful for power-blocs such as the Christian Right. (This isn't to go into gerrymandering, which further skews the 'democratic' input of your system. If you didn't already know that only ~8-12 seats in Congress are actually contested in terms of party fealty, you really, really, really should do).

MartinCron 14y ago
a large percentage of her voting base are corn farmers There aren't really that many corn farmers out there. Maybe you meant "a large percentage of her campaign donors are corn farmers"?
bigiain 14y ago
"your Congressman 'lobbies' for interests within their core voting block. " This is where I think current "politics" is lagging many decades behind modern society. Politicians are fundamentally geographically defined. They get voted in (or out) by groups of people with no relationship with each other beyond happening to live nearby. That idea worked out fine when your village was your whole life, and it works OK for "big issues" that affect everyone (like taxation, education, military), but there are a lot of issues where there is more than enough public support to deserve representation but that support is not geographically localized enough for the current system to give the people concerned a voice. So many of the things I end up shouting at the television or newspapers about are in this category. What _I'd_ love to be able to vote for: A Congressman for The Internet A Congressman for Copyright and Patents A Congressman for Motorcyclists A Congressman for Citizens Rights WRT Government & Law Enforcement I'd like the opportunity to choose to vote for someone aligned with issues that concern _me_ instead of being assumed to be a "constituent" of an aspirant politician just because of where they and I happen to choose to live. Instead, the issues that concern _me_ are debated and voted on by people who don't give a damn because they know there's not enough geeks/musicians/inventors/entrepreneurs/motorcyclists/libertarians geographically clustered enough to make any difference at the polling booth, and so the only issues that ever get addressed are ones with a local enough aspect to risk having a likely effect on a city/state/federal elections outcome. Society has spread beyond having my circle of friends and acquaintances being "other people in my village" - and in the last 20 years the internet has magnified that change enormously, political and legal structures haven't changed to reflect that. (and may never - my circle of friends crosses national boundaries in ways that probably make my desires of how I'm personally politically represented impossible)

baddox 14y ago

> They're just horrible lobbyists. Are they really? I suspect a lot of representatives are successful largely due to their ability to get federal funds directed toward their districts. The point I would want to make isn't that representatives should be better at shuffling money around, but rather that the whole game shouldn't be about shuffling money around.