3 ms·
I agree, except the alternative is worse. The intent of lobbying is to inform elected officials about issues that they do not necessarily know anything about.
by lostcolony 12y ago
I agree, except the alternative is worse.
The intent of lobbying is to inform elected officials about issues that they do not necessarily know anything about. The bribery aspect really has more to do with campaign contributions than lobbying, though lobbying can indirectly use those contributions, as well as a lot of societal norms to get its own way (you spend a lot of time discussing issues with someone, even when that someone is biased, and it's a bit rude to vote against them).
Without lobbyists, we have a bunch of uninformed, extremely partisan, mostly white, mostly old, mostly men deciding law, and that's probably even worse.
I don't know the fix; certainly, limiting the amount of lobbying corporations can do is likely part of it, but I would not want to also limit the ability of the ACLU and EFF from being able to talk to Congress, either.
- dm2 12y agoI personally think that removing the "burden" of voting on so many issues from congress and giving it directly to the people through online voting would be a potential solution. Verification of votes would be very possible. If it did get hacked then fix the security hole, wipe the system, and vote again. It would never happen because of self-interest in congress and they'd argue "but normal citizens are too dumb to decide for themselves".
- giancarlostoro 12y agoWhile we're at it why don't we fix campaigning too? Limit how much politicians can get from corporations. What are we the Mafia?
- maxerickson 12y agoThe road to robust democracy is not paved with rules. People need to pay more attention to what the government is doing, pretty much all the time, and at every level of government. It would also be nice if people were a little more willing to consider that permission from 51% is still some pretty shitty permission.