2 ms·

Honest question from a non-citizen about this line "But he is fighting against very powerful lobbyists..." I do not understand lobbying? Is it a euphemism abou

by geekam 12y ago

Honest question from a non-citizen about this line "But he is fighting against very powerful lobbyists..." I do not understand lobbying? Is it a euphemism about bribing a bunch of politicians? If yes, then why isn't it illegal? If no, then can someone please throw some light on it. I was not born here in the US so I am always confused by what "powerful lobbyists" can do to deter someone like the chairman of FCC who can literally make the rules (right?).

tootie 12y ago
Lobbyists lobby. All that means is that they share their opinions with government officials. Money need not be involved. When people complain about lobbying it's usually in the context of corporate-sponsored lobbyists who are paid to push their agenda and are spending money. Money can't be paid as an outright bribe (I'm sure it happens, but is pretty rare) but rather in the form of campaign contributions, or occasionally in direct political advertising. Recent Supreme Court rulings have really removed any restrictions on how much can be spent by independent political groups even if they are 100% sponsored by corporations or trade groups or whoever. Wheeler is an appointed leader of an executive branch agency, meaning that he has no campaign fund. Funds can be directed to Congressional campaign funds and Congress can in turn put pressure on his agency (the FCC) to either defund them or rewrite their authority, or to sue them for whatever perceived breach of their existing authority. Theoretically, there is no way a lobbyist can directly influence him.
icehawk219 12y ago
Lobbying in its purest form is supposed to be a way for people to have a voice in their government. Anyone in this country can ring up, or write, or email, their representative and push for an issue they feel strongly about. Likewise they can also make campaign contributions to the representatives, or candidates, they like and want to see in office. And the two can very easily be tied together: "I'm donating to your campaign because ...". If you keep it that simple it's a pretty good idea and is one that I think most people can get behind. However in our modern world it really is just blatant bribery. Because corporations and rich individuals are able to donate such vast amounts that they are the only ones people care about. Take a look at how much money is spent during election cycles and it's obscene how many millions are poured into running for office. All that money has to come from somewhere. Say, for arguments sake, you must raise at least $5m to have a chance of winning an election but you think you can only raise about $2m from small donations (individuals) and then a few companies come along offering you nice big money bags if you agree to support their causes. Who do you care most about?
- geekam 12y ago
  I see. So, the only way to have fair "for the people, by the people, of the people" elections is to have people fund the elections? Thanks for a nice explanation.
  - icehawk219 12y ago
    Well the idea is that anyone can run for election and in order to afford to do so people can pool their resources and help out. So if I want to run for mayor and you really like me a lot better than the other person you can pitch in in different ways. You can help me reach out to voters, you can make calls for me, you can help me with social media, or you can donate money to me so I can pay people to do those things. This by itself really isn't a problem especially when there are caps on how much money people can donate, which there are. But if you donate as much money to my campaign as you are allowed what's to stop you from calling up the local TV station and paying them directly to run an ad for me? I might not even necessarily be involved at any point. The big problems come when we do things like decide a multinational corporation qualifies as a person and therefor the rules around how much money a company can donate don't apply to them. And we do things like change the rules around what the limits are. And then people do things like fund PACs where they pool their resources and promote a candidate on their own without actually donating to the campaign itself directly. Some of these are just outright stupid decisions that never should have happened in the first place and others are loopholes. Campaign finance reform in the US doesn't have a single silver bullet that's going to fix everything. There's a lot of things that are wrong with it. Citizens United (the corporate personhood ruling) is probably the biggest but it's still just one problem among many.

by geekam 12y ago

tootie 12y ago

Lobbyists lobby. All that means is that they share their opinions with government officials. Money need not be involved. When people complain about lobbying it's usually in the context of corporate-sponsored lobbyists who are paid to push their agenda and are spending money. Money can't be paid as an outright bribe (I'm sure it happens, but is pretty rare) but rather in the form of campaign contributions, or occasionally in direct political advertising. Recent Supreme Court rulings have really removed any restrictions on how much can be spent by independent political groups even if they are 100% sponsored by corporations or trade groups or whoever. Wheeler is an appointed leader of an executive branch agency, meaning that he has no campaign fund. Funds can be directed to Congressional campaign funds and Congress can in turn put pressure on his agency (the FCC) to either defund them or rewrite their authority, or to sue them for whatever perceived breach of their existing authority. Theoretically, there is no way a lobbyist can directly influence him.

icehawk219 12y ago

Lobbying in its purest form is supposed to be a way for people to have a voice in their government. Anyone in this country can ring up, or write, or email, their representative and push for an issue they feel strongly about. Likewise they can also make campaign contributions to the representatives, or candidates, they like and want to see in office. And the two can very easily be tied together: "I'm donating to your campaign because ...". If you keep it that simple it's a pretty good idea and is one that I think most people can get behind. However in our modern world it really is just blatant bribery. Because corporations and rich individuals are able to donate such vast amounts that they are the only ones people care about. Take a look at how much money is spent during election cycles and it's obscene how many millions are poured into running for office. All that money has to come from somewhere. Say, for arguments sake, you must raise at least $5m to have a chance of winning an election but you think you can only raise about $2m from small donations (individuals) and then a few companies come along offering you nice big money bags if you agree to support their causes. Who do you care most about?

geekam 12y ago
I see. So, the only way to have fair "for the people, by the people, of the people" elections is to have people fund the elections? Thanks for a nice explanation.
- icehawk219 12y ago
  Well the idea is that anyone can run for election and in order to afford to do so people can pool their resources and help out. So if I want to run for mayor and you really like me a lot better than the other person you can pitch in in different ways. You can help me reach out to voters, you can make calls for me, you can help me with social media, or you can donate money to me so I can pay people to do those things. This by itself really isn't a problem especially when there are caps on how much money people can donate, which there are. But if you donate as much money to my campaign as you are allowed what's to stop you from calling up the local TV station and paying them directly to run an ad for me? I might not even necessarily be involved at any point. The big problems come when we do things like decide a multinational corporation qualifies as a person and therefor the rules around how much money a company can donate don't apply to them. And we do things like change the rules around what the limits are. And then people do things like fund PACs where they pool their resources and promote a candidate on their own without actually donating to the campaign itself directly. Some of these are just outright stupid decisions that never should have happened in the first place and others are loopholes. Campaign finance reform in the US doesn't have a single silver bullet that's going to fix everything. There's a lot of things that are wrong with it. Citizens United (the corporate personhood ruling) is probably the biggest but it's still just one problem among many.