5 ms·
You can't paint all lobbying with the same brush. There are beneficial lobbying groups out there helping to bring a voice to issues in an arena where they would
by oatmeal_coffee 12y ago
You can't paint all lobbying with the same brush. There are beneficial lobbying groups out there helping to bring a voice to issues in an arena where they would otherwise normally be drowned out. We just focus on the bad ones because they tend to have greater influence. Absolutist positions such as this are rarely true and sensible.
- DavidWanjiru 12y agoIf the question was whether or not to ban lobbying, how do the benefits of lobbying stack up against the damage? That whole cost-benefit analysis thing...
- spacefight 12y agoHave a guess. I have one: the consumer pays up nicely in the end. Lobbying is done (most of the time) for the benefit of coorporations who wan't to expand their business volume.
- oatmeal_coffee 12y agoThe question is whether or not to ban lobbying is not a reasonable one, if only because lobbying would not be able to be banned just on a principle of free speech alone. People have a voice—good, bad, whatever—and lobbying provides an efficient means of communicating that voice. The question is rather how to reduce, if not obviate, the damage caused by the role of money in lobbying without violating free speech rights.
- kyllo 12y agoYeah... I think the whole premise behind SuperPACs is the ridiculous notion that money = speech and campaign contributions are protected free speech.
- snsr 12y agoMoney is not speech, despite the Citizens United ruling.
- twoodfin 12y agoSo Congress could set limits on how much money the New York Times could spend to cover federal elections?
- lhc- 12y agoNews coverage of federal elections is vastly different than candidate advocacy.
- uptown 12y agoAgreed. But news agencies seem to cross that divide when they feel the need to endorse political candidates.
- twoodfin 12y agoIt doesn't matter how different it is: If money is not speech, why couldn't Congress prevent the Times from spending money to write and print articles about candidates?
- gfrdgre4 12y agoLOL what? The New York Times has endorsed a Democratic president for the last 50 years or something.
- seanflyon 12y agoIs it? I think instead of funding a superPAC I'll start a news organization to cover the election as I see fit.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- Loughla 12y agoLobbying also includes when you call your representative to complain about a certain issue. So, to ban lobbying outright is to ban input from every citizen to their representative.
- 67726e 12y agoSolution: Only a candidate can pay for ads, campaigning, and the like. There is a campaign contribution cap reasonably low as your average citizen could reach it. None of these BS PACs, none of this "I'll make a large donation if you 'listen' to what I want".
- JibberMeTimbers 12y agoWhat happens in the rich candidate vs poorer candidate elections then? The richer one would get a lot more viewership and exposure, increasing his chances to win. It doesn't solve the problem.
- 67726e 12y agoHell, allocate a specific amount to each candidate for elections. We already have such a system in place[0]. Just make that mandatory. [0] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_election_campaign_fund_checkoff#General_election http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_election_campaign_...
- Dylan16807 12y agoEasy, limit them to the same campaign contribution as everybody else.
- Kadin 12y agoThe problem, of course, is that the courts have struck down similar (actually, less restrictive) laws. So it doesn't seem as though there is any path that would lead us to that from where we currently stand.
- nitrogen 12y agoNobody but a lobbyist would use "lobbying" to describe direct contact by unpaid citizens. Is there a name for the argumentative tactic of lumping unlike things together so one can say "if you hate me you must also hate yourself"?
- m_mueller 12y agoYou know what's also a good way to bring issues into 'the arena'? People's initiatives. Democracy is only really a stable system that can protect civil rights if you go all the way with it. There shouldn't be a law that the people as a whole cannot throw out. Otherwise a political system is not worth being called 'democracy' (= reign of the people). The government is supposed to be serving the people as a whole, not just a few financially strong and powerful groups.
- greedo 12y agoDemocracy != Republic Look at how screwed up California is due to the ability of propositions to be enacted without any concern for how they'll be financed.
- IndianAstronaut 12y agoWith all the communications and monitoring technology, I am surprised we still have the antiquated representative system. This system came about in an era where the travel time of a message was in days not milliseconds.
- sbierwagen 12y agoThere are beneficial lobbying groups out there helping to bring a voice to issues in an arena where they would otherwise normally be drowned out. Lobbying is like advertising[1] in that it's a vicious cycle. If company A spends $100 on advertising, then they capture the market, and push out company B. In retaliation, company B spends $150, and company A spends $200... In 2010, Coca-cola spent $2.9 billion on advertising. They only did that because Pepsi spent about the same amount. "Good" lobbyists only exist because bad lobbyists exist. If you could cut the budget of every lobbying firm by 50% then nothing would change. The only thing that affects outcomes i proportional spend. 1: In fact it is advertising, to an audience segment of one.
- canvia 12y agoCompanies like coca cola and mcdonalds have to advertise that much because they offer poor quality products that would otherwise be irrelevant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8344345 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8344345
- mikeash 12y agoLobbying in the form of "We think this is a good idea, and here's why you should vote for it" is fine, regardless of the issue. Lobbying in the form of "We think this is a good idea, and a million dollars says you should vote for it" is bad, regardless of the issue, even if the position they advocate is a good one.