5 ms·

It is not. This is why US is not ranked high on any corruption list, while maintaining the highest level if private financial influence not only in the lawmakin

It is not. This is why US is not ranked high on any corruption list, while maintaining the highest level if private financial influence not only in the lawmaking but also in national security. These are very dangerous, and as the Princeton study points out it threatens democracy in the long run very much. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9354310 http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPag...

sillygoose 11y ago
You could even argue that lobbying is democracy's way of having "corruption" built-in. When there's a dictatorship, no one is surprised when the dictator is bribed. In a democracy, you can't just walk into the president's office and drop a bag of money on his desk, but you can lobby the shit out of him. Either way, you get to bribe someone who's in a position to hand out favours. That's just how political power works.
happyscrappy 11y ago
Some country the size of Massachussetts can rank better but let's ignore Italy and Greece.
- rmxt 11y ago
  You say this as if lobbying/corruption doesn't happen from the top (federal) to the bottom (local/city) in the United States... We don't need to compare the federal government's issues with "security" spending to European countries to see how there are questionable spending practices at the state level, e.g. public works contracts.
  - happyscrappy 11y ago
    Well that is going to be a hard argument to sell because so many laws are local and you can't really successfully condemn every small jurisdictions decisions without condemning the people that voted for them.
    - rmxt 11y ago
      Saying that it's unfeasible to criticize the elected without criticizing the electorate is silly. It's not that the laws are wrong in spirit, it's that they are crafted or operated around so as to benefit the people that put them in place (or their cronies). I think that making the argument that the elected are separate in many ways -- socially, ethically, and legally -- from the electorate is a very easy one to make. It's also a lesson repeated throughout history: see Rome (and the transition from Republic to Empire), Britain (and their 19th century colonial exploits), and others.
      - happyscrappy 11y ago
        You can criticize the personal traits of the elected but when their policies are overwhelmingly supported it is hard to condemn that without involving the people who voted for it. It sucks to have the majority against your beliefs but pretending doesn't address the real problem.
        rmxt 11y ago
        Doubling down on the good old "appeal to the majority," I see... guess we won't be getting anywhere in this thread. The real problem is the one that I am addressing: it starts with the offices themselves and continues as the revolving door continues to revolve. The masses have less and less of a chance to get their desires implemented if lobbying occurs.
        happyscrappy 11y ago
        "Appeal to the majority" is the basis of democracy and failed minority positions have no choice but to oppose it.
        rmxt 11y ago
        Yet again, you've missed the point. Lobbying and its disproportional impacts are the antitheses of majoritarian rule. They are examples of failed (or more accurately, untested) minority opinions crafted into law and policy without passing under public scrutiny. Your argument boils down to "things are currently the way they are because they are right," which belies the complexities of the situations at hand. That is the appeal to the majority that I am pointing out. It's ironic that you bring it up in the context of lobbying for the reason I've stated above. Note: I don't think that all lobbying is unethical or contrary to public opinion. I do think that a good majority of it is untested and inorganic. It's monied interests preserving monied interests.
- istvan__ 11y ago
  I am just pointing out the status quo.

sillygoose 11y ago

You could even argue that lobbying is democracy's way of having "corruption" built-in. When there's a dictatorship, no one is surprised when the dictator is bribed. In a democracy, you can't just walk into the president's office and drop a bag of money on his desk, but you can lobby the shit out of him. Either way, you get to bribe someone who's in a position to hand out favours. That's just how political power works.

happyscrappy 11y ago

Some country the size of Massachussetts can rank better but let's ignore Italy and Greece.

rmxt 11y ago
You say this as if lobbying/corruption doesn't happen from the top (federal) to the bottom (local/city) in the United States... We don't need to compare the federal government's issues with "security" spending to European countries to see how there are questionable spending practices at the state level, e.g. public works contracts.
- happyscrappy 11y ago
  Well that is going to be a hard argument to sell because so many laws are local and you can't really successfully condemn every small jurisdictions decisions without condemning the people that voted for them.
  - rmxt 11y ago
    Saying that it's unfeasible to criticize the elected without criticizing the electorate is silly. It's not that the laws are wrong in spirit, it's that they are crafted or operated around so as to benefit the people that put them in place (or their cronies). I think that making the argument that the elected are separate in many ways -- socially, ethically, and legally -- from the electorate is a very easy one to make. It's also a lesson repeated throughout history: see Rome (and the transition from Republic to Empire), Britain (and their 19th century colonial exploits), and others.
    - happyscrappy 11y ago
      You can criticize the personal traits of the elected but when their policies are overwhelmingly supported it is hard to condemn that without involving the people who voted for it. It sucks to have the majority against your beliefs but pretending doesn't address the real problem.
      - rmxt 11y ago
        Doubling down on the good old "appeal to the majority," I see... guess we won't be getting anywhere in this thread. The real problem is the one that I am addressing: it starts with the offices themselves and continues as the revolving door continues to revolve. The masses have less and less of a chance to get their desires implemented if lobbying occurs.
        happyscrappy 11y ago
        "Appeal to the majority" is the basis of democracy and failed minority positions have no choice but to oppose it.
        rmxt 11y ago
        Yet again, you've missed the point. Lobbying and its disproportional impacts are the antitheses of majoritarian rule. They are examples of failed (or more accurately, untested) minority opinions crafted into law and policy without passing under public scrutiny. Your argument boils down to "things are currently the way they are because they are right," which belies the complexities of the situations at hand. That is the appeal to the majority that I am pointing out. It's ironic that you bring it up in the context of lobbying for the reason I've stated above. Note: I don't think that all lobbying is unethical or contrary to public opinion. I do think that a good majority of it is untested and inorganic. It's monied interests preserving monied interests.
istvan__ 11y ago
I am just pointing out the status quo.