4 ms·

Lobbying isn't an inherently dirty thing. It started (and largely remains) a way for people with knowledge of a field outside the politician's bailiwick to info

Lobbying isn't an inherently dirty thing. It started (and largely remains) a way for people with knowledge of a field outside the politician's bailiwick to inform them of pros/cons to an issue they may not be aware of. Corruption has indeed seeped into the process, but I would prefer experts in a field (on both sides) to inform politicians than have them be clueless on the issues in question. The EFF, the ACLU? Lobbyists. Good lobbyists, but lobbyists nonetheless.

akshatpradhan 11y ago
Right now, lobbying IS a dirty thing. How can we clean it up?
ihsw 11y ago
The only good lobbyist is one that doesn't profit from his lobbying. This is the real issue here -- by making it financially beneficial to peddle rhetoric that reduces the quality of life for hundreds of millions of people, we are selling out. We're morally bankrupt in every sense. Only fools argue that "lobbying should be outlawed because it's bribery" because they lack the foresight to realize that such levers are necessary for a healthy political process, but it is more foolish to delude yourself into thinking that it's beneficial to peddle garbage legislative proposals. Trust, but verify. We're trusting lobbyists but not verifying whether that trust is warranted.
- fineman 11y ago
  "No boss, trust me on this. Sometimes - for the process to work - I have to let these guys pay me subvert the process." It's unacceptable that there are any levers on our politicians other than our votes - they're our employees after all. For what it's worth, if you're going to lobby I'd rather you lobby all of "us" (commercials, etc) to sway the popular vote than being able to concentrate on only our elected representatives.
lostcolony 11y ago
The problem is the process is innately corrupt though. If we wanted an uncorrupted process, we would set aside tax money to pay researchers in the field grants solely to study and advise, with laws preventing them from taking subsidies and the like elsewhere. Perhaps with a process to allocate existing researchers to new issues. Corporation feels that we need more spying on our citizens because it makes them profitable? They could raise that issue, an existent researcher could look into it; but the continued funding of that researcher is not tied to their findings or results in any way. As it is, the side with the most money gets the most lobbying, and that's not even considering the negative effect of campaign donations and the like.
- shit_parade2 11y ago
  Lobbying is an inheritly tricky problem because you want to allow everyone to exercise free speech, if suddenly only government funded researchers are allowed to make comments on policy you no longer can participate in democratic governance. The problem is governents have way too much control over nearly every facet of the economy and it is much cheaper and easier to buy a senator and get some new regulations passed than it is to build a successful product or service that everyday people want to opt in for. When you mandate decisions, you tend to get bad and corrupt decisions that benefit the few over the many.
  - fineman 11y ago
    It's not the issue of the speech in lobbying, it's that lobbying in politics means gifts of money. I can "lobby" a police officer not to give me a ticket, but when I offer him a $20 all of a sudden he'll call it a bribe and slap the cuffs on me. (Despite my explanations that money is speech, and thus protected...)
- mathiasben 11y ago
  The congressional research service does this. Unfortunatley over the last two decades it's been crippled by partisian meddling. - http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/januaryfebruary_2015/features/why_i_quit_the_congressional_r053467.php?page=all http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/januaryfebruary_20...
roc 11y ago
Lobbying is like any other organization of man: government, organized religion, corporations, unions, non-profits, etc. Once they get to a certain size, once people are supported solely by the organization and thus put their need for it to exist and grow and flourish above even its stated purpose, it can (and seemingly inevitably does) become corrupt. Lobbying on Net Neutrality, done by a bunch of technology workers passionate about the issue is fine. Lobbying on Net Neutrality by professional lobbyists (selling their rolodex) and corporate lawyers, who donate, wine/dine, hire nephews, host fundraisers, etc is not. It's pretty clear which version people are talking about when they complain about lobbying. (Hint: less to do with reddit, more to do with K Street) And professional lobbying is pretty much inherently corrupt.
- AnkhMorporkian 11y ago
  I largely agree, though I think professional lobbyists ideally would have a place as a representative of a large group. What needs to be done is campaign finance reform. If we get money out of running for office, most of these soft-corruption problems will disappear.
cies 11y ago
> The EFF, the ACLU? Lobbyists. Good lobbyists, but lobbyists nonetheless. Necessary to counter bad lobbyist. :) Lobbying: you have more money == you have more influence. Sounds very undemocratic to me. > I would prefer experts in a field (on both sides) to inform politicians than have them be clueless on the issues in question. But to have them paid for? If civilians press on their representatives, in their own "free" time, this is the only "lobbying" that I consider "honest". Lobbies kill democracies. You think, for instance, the US would be in so heavily invested in going to war without military corps spending on lobbying? I think lobbies are bad. In my country (NL) a lobbyist can walk closer to politicians (like a journalist) then a civilian is allowed to. This is too much.

akshatpradhan 11y ago

Right now, lobbying IS a dirty thing. How can we clean it up?

ihsw 11y ago

The only good lobbyist is one that doesn't profit from his lobbying. This is the real issue here -- by making it financially beneficial to peddle rhetoric that reduces the quality of life for hundreds of millions of people, we are selling out. We're morally bankrupt in every sense. Only fools argue that "lobbying should be outlawed because it's bribery" because they lack the foresight to realize that such levers are necessary for a healthy political process, but it is more foolish to delude yourself into thinking that it's beneficial to peddle garbage legislative proposals. Trust, but verify. We're trusting lobbyists but not verifying whether that trust is warranted.

fineman 11y ago
"No boss, trust me on this. Sometimes - for the process to work - I have to let these guys pay me subvert the process." It's unacceptable that there are any levers on our politicians other than our votes - they're our employees after all. For what it's worth, if you're going to lobby I'd rather you lobby all of "us" (commercials, etc) to sway the popular vote than being able to concentrate on only our elected representatives.

lostcolony 11y ago

The problem is the process is innately corrupt though. If we wanted an uncorrupted process, we would set aside tax money to pay researchers in the field grants solely to study and advise, with laws preventing them from taking subsidies and the like elsewhere. Perhaps with a process to allocate existing researchers to new issues. Corporation feels that we need more spying on our citizens because it makes them profitable? They could raise that issue, an existent researcher could look into it; but the continued funding of that researcher is not tied to their findings or results in any way. As it is, the side with the most money gets the most lobbying, and that's not even considering the negative effect of campaign donations and the like.

shit_parade2 11y ago
Lobbying is an inheritly tricky problem because you want to allow everyone to exercise free speech, if suddenly only government funded researchers are allowed to make comments on policy you no longer can participate in democratic governance. The problem is governents have way too much control over nearly every facet of the economy and it is much cheaper and easier to buy a senator and get some new regulations passed than it is to build a successful product or service that everyday people want to opt in for. When you mandate decisions, you tend to get bad and corrupt decisions that benefit the few over the many.
- fineman 11y ago
  It's not the issue of the speech in lobbying, it's that lobbying in politics means gifts of money. I can "lobby" a police officer not to give me a ticket, but when I offer him a $20 all of a sudden he'll call it a bribe and slap the cuffs on me. (Despite my explanations that money is speech, and thus protected...)
mathiasben 11y ago
The congressional research service does this. Unfortunatley over the last two decades it's been crippled by partisian meddling. - http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/januaryfebruary_2015/features/why_i_quit_the_congressional_r053467.php?page=all http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/januaryfebruary_20...

roc 11y ago

Lobbying is like any other organization of man: government, organized religion, corporations, unions, non-profits, etc. Once they get to a certain size, once people are supported solely by the organization and thus put their need for it to exist and grow and flourish above even its stated purpose, it can (and seemingly inevitably does) become corrupt. Lobbying on Net Neutrality, done by a bunch of technology workers passionate about the issue is fine. Lobbying on Net Neutrality by professional lobbyists (selling their rolodex) and corporate lawyers, who donate, wine/dine, hire nephews, host fundraisers, etc is not. It's pretty clear which version people are talking about when they complain about lobbying. (Hint: less to do with reddit, more to do with K Street) And professional lobbying is pretty much inherently corrupt.

AnkhMorporkian 11y ago
I largely agree, though I think professional lobbyists ideally would have a place as a representative of a large group. What needs to be done is campaign finance reform. If we get money out of running for office, most of these soft-corruption problems will disappear.

cies 11y ago

> The EFF, the ACLU? Lobbyists. Good lobbyists, but lobbyists nonetheless. Necessary to counter bad lobbyist. :) Lobbying: you have more money == you have more influence. Sounds very undemocratic to me. > I would prefer experts in a field (on both sides) to inform politicians than have them be clueless on the issues in question. But to have them paid for? If civilians press on their representatives, in their own "free" time, this is the only "lobbying" that I consider "honest". Lobbies kill democracies. You think, for instance, the US would be in so heavily invested in going to war without military corps spending on lobbying? I think lobbies are bad. In my country (NL) a lobbyist can walk closer to politicians (like a journalist) then a civilian is allowed to. This is too much.