3 ms·
> How again is "lobbying" different from "legalized corruption"? [serious] Lobbying in, say, the UK isn't legalized corruption. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05
by fweespeech 11y ago
> How again is "lobbying" different from "legalized corruption"? [serious]
Lobbying in, say, the UK isn't legalized corruption.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/world/europe/with-campaign-spending-limited-british-politicians-vie-to-be-liked-and-retweeted.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/world/europe/with-campaign...
> LONDON — There is no political advertising on television or radio in Britain. Fund-raising and spending are strictly limited. Tight elections can turn on a relative handful of votes in a small number of competitive parliamentary constituencies.
If you don't need to buy broadcast ads for 6 figures during campaign season, there is alot less power in the hands of a lobbyist.
- arprocter 11y agoIn the UK there are 'Party political broadcasts' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_political_broadcast http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_political_broadcast
- fweespeech 11y agoYes, but they are not being charged for the time. It is the fact that US politics allows essentially unlimited spending on broadcast advertising to consumers that creates the corrupting influence of lobbyists on the scale we are seeing. 1 on 1 conversations with industry, media, union reps, etc. is part of doing business in a democracy. Mass broadcasts to sway public opinion isn't required. > In the United Kingdom the Communications Act 2003 prohibits political advertising on television or radio; parties are instead allocated broadcast slots (usually around five minutes long) free of charge on broadcast channels using a formula set by Parliament
- arprocter 11y agoIMO the article should've said 'There is no /paid-for/ political advertising on television or radio in Britain'.
- fweespeech 11y agoFair enough, I figured the context of the 6 figure comment I made was enough context about my meaning with that quote.