3 ms·

> "The cost and burden of filing taxes is a major hammer people use to chip away at the whole concept of progressive taxation. That $10 million doesn't guarante

by kyro 12y ago

> "The cost and burden of filing taxes is a major hammer people use to chip away at the whole concept of progressive taxation. That $10 million doesn't guarantee Intuit favorable legislation--it leverages a deep divide in the polity that happens to advance Intuit's specific interests." How are these not the same exact thing? I don't think anyone is claiming that lobbying is akin to submitting a payment for immediate legislation approval. We are all well aware that there are politicians and voter bases that may side with a company like Intuit. But in either case, the money is being used to influence legislation, whether that's a sure shot or to tip the scales. Rather than legislate based on the merit of both opinions (eg. paid vs free tax filing), companies are introducing often personal financial incentives for politicians to dig their heels into the ground by claiming that a particular opinion is Right and True. Deepening the divide does nothing more than cause people to bury their heads further into their ideologies and works against progress.

rayiner 12y ago
First, there no "personal financial incentives." Lobbying isn't the same as campaign donations, and corporations like Intuit are prohibited from making direct campaign donations. Second, legislation isn't based on "the merit of both opinions" but how both opinions fit into the preferences and ideologies of the polity. And in a democracy, that's probably precisely what legislation should be based on. Third, keeping the above two points in mind, I think it's fundamentally different to say that lobbying "guarantees favorable legislation" and to say that lobbying exploits an ideological divide in the polity that "results in favorable legislation." The former seems wrongful. The second, in my mind, seems entirely appropriate. I think it's fine to spend money to remind elected officials that a particular, minor, policy decision (making taxes easier to file) will undermine their efforts to make a different, major policy decision consistent with the preferences of their voter base (lowering tax rates, reducing the progressiveness of the tax code).
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  >First, there no "personal financial incentives." Lobbying isn't the same as campaign donations, and corporations like Intuit are prohibited from making direct campaign donations. You say the most fantastical things sometimes. I know you're aware of what "Quid pro quo" means, but you apparently must believe it to be some abstract conceptual thing without any practical use.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    > You say the most fantastical things sometimes. I just know more about lobbying than most people who harp about it. > I know you're aware of what "Quid pro quo" means What quid pro quo is involved in lobbying? To me, a "quid pro quo" is "here's a $5 million donation and if you happen to support our legislation, that would be great." That's not lobbying, and that's illegal. Lobbying is hiring someone to tell an elected official: "if you support these environmental laws, it will affect the coal industry and 1,000 people in your district might find themselves out of work." That's not a quid pro quo to me.
    - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
      >I just know more about lobbying than most people who harp about it. Well then, enlighten us all as to why it is such a lucrative business despite your assertion that lobbyists primarily write persuasive letters extolling the virtues of employment in the coal mines. If you're not just being obtuse, and really cannot see the connection between campaign finance and political influence, then it's time to question the source of your lobbying knowledge. Have you merely collected a large number of facts pertaining to lobbying?

by kyro 12y ago

rayiner 12y ago

First, there no "personal financial incentives." Lobbying isn't the same as campaign donations, and corporations like Intuit are prohibited from making direct campaign donations. Second, legislation isn't based on "the merit of both opinions" but how both opinions fit into the preferences and ideologies of the polity. And in a democracy, that's probably precisely what legislation should be based on. Third, keeping the above two points in mind, I think it's fundamentally different to say that lobbying "guarantees favorable legislation" and to say that lobbying exploits an ideological divide in the polity that "results in favorable legislation." The former seems wrongful. The second, in my mind, seems entirely appropriate. I think it's fine to spend money to remind elected officials that a particular, minor, policy decision (making taxes easier to file) will undermine their efforts to make a different, major policy decision consistent with the preferences of their voter base (lowering tax rates, reducing the progressiveness of the tax code).

fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
>First, there no "personal financial incentives." Lobbying isn't the same as campaign donations, and corporations like Intuit are prohibited from making direct campaign donations. You say the most fantastical things sometimes. I know you're aware of what "Quid pro quo" means, but you apparently must believe it to be some abstract conceptual thing without any practical use.
- rayiner 12y ago
  > You say the most fantastical things sometimes. I just know more about lobbying than most people who harp about it. > I know you're aware of what "Quid pro quo" means What quid pro quo is involved in lobbying? To me, a "quid pro quo" is "here's a $5 million donation and if you happen to support our legislation, that would be great." That's not lobbying, and that's illegal. Lobbying is hiring someone to tell an elected official: "if you support these environmental laws, it will affect the coal industry and 1,000 people in your district might find themselves out of work." That's not a quid pro quo to me.
  - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
    >I just know more about lobbying than most people who harp about it. Well then, enlighten us all as to why it is such a lucrative business despite your assertion that lobbyists primarily write persuasive letters extolling the virtues of employment in the coal mines. If you're not just being obtuse, and really cannot see the connection between campaign finance and political influence, then it's time to question the source of your lobbying knowledge. Have you merely collected a large number of facts pertaining to lobbying?