[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?

[danso]

Being incarcerated is not the only nor the worst affliction that a government can bring down upon you.