6 ms·
If 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...
by DavidWanjiru 12y ago
If 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"?