[downandout]

Another good step would be to legally bar organizations that directly benefit from jails/prisons from lobbying for any law that is likely to result in more prisoners or higher sentences. These would include correctional officer/law enforcement unions, bail bond companies, criminal defense attorneys, and any company that derives most of its revenue from selling goods or services to jails/prisons, inmates, or criminal defendants.

[bunderbunder]

Lobbying used to be flat-out illegal in the USA, but, over the past century or so, the Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed it as protected speech under the First Amendment, and therefore something that basically can't be restricted in any meaningful way.

So I don't think it - or a number of other socially corrosive aspects of the American political system - is likely to change without an amendment that would be extremely difficult to pass.

[Amezarak]

The trouble with lobbying is - where do you draw the line?

Do I, an individual citizen, have a right to petition my elected representatives?

Do I, an individual citizen, have a right to organize with fellow citizens to petition my elected representatives?

Do I, an individual citizen, who owns a business, have a right to organize with fellow citizens who own similar businesses to petition my representatives?

The problem with lobbying is a fundamental issue with representative democracy, not with the American political system. Lobbying by monied interests is simply more overt in the American system. I can't think of a Western democracy where industry interests don't have a huge say in the legislative and even executive processes. From the perspective of the politician, they are looking out for their constituents by helping out industrial interests, because in their eyes, that means jobs and development.

I agree there is a huge problem with the outsized influence of industry in the political realm, but I think it's a very complicated problem to untangle. The only way we have to fight it is to organize ourselves, which is usually extremely difficult.

[milcron]

Lobbying as a citizen who happens to own a business is different from a business itself lobbying. I'm perfectly fine with the former.

[Karunamon]

But then you somehow need to encode that belief into law in a way that doesn't trample on the constitution.

And maybe this is a bug in the system, but trying to fix it has some truly scary question marks attached.

[milcron]

I don't think this boundary would be that difficult to delineate and enforce. Political donations ought to come from personal bank accounts rather than corporate ones. Is it any more difficult than that?

[Amezarak]

So then you don't believe individuals have the right to organize to petition their representatives? Because any organization is going to mean pooling resources into a legal structure...like a corporation.

[dredmorbius]

There's nothing about the US Constitution that says that different elements of it don't conflict. The question precisely is working out where boundaries exist, and what trade-offs to make.

[Karunamon]

No, but changing the constitution is not a minor affair. You can't just propose one amendment through the legislative process, you have to launch a convention, and the country you get on the other side of that may not have much in common with the country now.

[specialist]

Please don't conflate lobbying with bribes. We all have the right to lobby (petition) our government.

Various Supremes expanded the notion that corporations are people, that money equals speech, and so forth. So many ways to rig the game in favor of capital (over democracy).

As an optimist, I predict the plutocrats will demand public financing of campaigns when they realized they're wasting their money. The money chase is an arms race with ever diminishing returns.

[bunderbunder]

In this context, "lobby" doesn't just mean petitioning the government. It specifically means when you have someone whose full-time job is to try and influence legislators and other policymakers on behalf of one's employer.

In the early USA it was considered antithetical to democracy precisely because it gives a great advantage to people with the financial resources to hire a lobbyist. So for over 200 years now, the word "lobbying" has already had a particular definition in the context of the money=speech debate. I don't think that trying to redefine the the term in the way you propose makes your point so much as it hinders it by muddying the waters.

[swyman]

Fun fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern...

[SilasX]

What does that even mean, to "ban lobbying"? You can't approach legislators and advocate for legislation?

[noobermin]

>extremely difficult

You underestimate the will and anger of the American people.

[cloudjacker]

Maybe we could have a licensing regime for a newly defined lobbying organization, and then delegate the licensing requirements to a federal agency who has unilateral and arbitrary authority to alter licensing compliance

one of which will be to drastically limit actions possible for lobbyists

[GrinningFool]

> nd then delegate the licensing requirements to a federal agency who has unilateral and arbitrary authority to alter licensing compliance But then the lobbyists would start lobbying to loosen these restrictions...

[cloudjacker]

yes, they would. in a couple election cycles they'll have their own people running the agency

and then that generation of newly politically-aware young adults will have to tackle that

I think its a pursuable solution to address today's problem to get a better reflection of what American people want

[rayiner]

> criminal defense attorneys

The National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys actively lobbies for drug law reform, sentencing reform, and against civil forfeiture, mandatory minimums, the death penalty, and overcriminalization: https://www.nacdl.org/criminal-defense/death-penalty. [1] They're on the front lines of trying to reform the justice system, and your proposal would silence them (because you could just as easily say they "benefit" from those reforms because their clients do).

[1] And the bar as a whole is probably way to the left of the average person on criminal justice issues.

[downandout]

Please read my comments more carefully before criticizing them. I said that they should be barred from lobbying for "any law that is likely to result in more prisoners or higher sentences".

I'd love to see all of these organizations lobby for laws that are likely to result in overall decreases in inmate counts, and/or lower sentences.

[rayiner]

Your proviso is irrelevant to my point: You've concocted this world model that tells you that criminal defense attorneys lobby in favor of stiffer prison sentences because it serves their monetary interests. My point is that your world view is wrong; its not about the merits of your hypothetical ban.

[downandout]

My world view is that anyone that stands to directly profit from laws that are likely to increase the inmate population or average sentence length should not be able to play a part in getting those laws passed.

[mkopinsky]

So the government shouldn't only be deciding who can or can't lobby on a particular issue, but which side of the debate each respective party can or can't be on? "I'm sorry sir, but given your circumstances you may only support these Approved Beliefs."

[downandout]

Again, we're talking about a very specific subset of laws here - criminal laws - that benefit a very small subset of people and businesses in the US.

[Anon1096]

So basically you want to outlaw lobbying for representation? That's the outcome of your proposals. A union is no different than an individual, except that many people are included in the group. Outlawing lobbying by unions means that I, if I were theoretically a prison guard, can't lobby (ask for representation) from my local lawmakers on issues that I think matter. Is that the world you want to live in? What if this were applied to a group you support, like restricting the EFF's ability to lobby because they have a conflict of interest. I really think that many people advocating any type of lobbying restriction needs to stop and think about the consequences of what they are working towards before proceeding.

[yummyfajitas]

That is a world I'd like to live in. Such people suffer from a principal/agent problem - they gain more from the government as employees/contractors/etc than as citizens, so their interest is primarily in having more money funneled to them as employees. For this reason, restricting their lobbying/voting/etc activity as one of the terms of receiving government money is perfectly reasonable.

The EFF, in contrast, has no such conflict of interest. Any organization which does not take government money is just a consumer of government services. Their interest is the same as everyone else's - encouraging the government to do the best job possible.

[ikeboy]

> Any organization which does not take government money is just a consumer of government services.

From the above comment:

>bail bond companies, criminal defense attorneys

>any company that derives most of its revenue from selling goods or services to ... inmates, or criminal defendants

All of those take no government money in the strictest sense.

[Anon1096]

The EFF "receives" money as part of being a non profit. So yes, they do take government money, and aren't only consumers of government services.

[dllthomas]

> The EFF "receives" money as part of being a non profit.

Strictly speaking, you can be a non-profit without any special tax treatment.

[downandout]

No, I don't want to "basically outlaw lobbying for representation". I said nothing of the sort. I said that organizations that directly profit from criminal laws shouldn't be able to lobby for them. Criminal laws do tremendous damage to the lives of the people they affect, and as such need to be deliberated without the influence of people that will financially benefit from them.

And yes, a world where criminal laws are not able to be influenced by people that will profit from them is definitely one I want to live in.

[alistairSH]

Should we, as software developers and IT professionals, be able to lobby about information security? Net neutrality?

If we can't, and Verizon/Cox also can't (they also have a conflict), who is left? People who either don't care or lack enough knowledge of the issue to make reasonable policy recommendations?

[downandout]

Will you directly profit if someone goes to jail as a result of the laws you're lobbying for? That is the only scenario I am talking about here.

[danso]

As a developer not in the Windows ecosystem, I would have definitely benefited from lobbying on behalf of an anti-trust action against Microsoft.

[downandout]

Did Microsoft go to jail?

[foresterh]

That brings up something else that needs a complete overhaul - the lobbying rules, or lack thereof.