Lobbying is just a legal form of corruption. Ban it, and it will still continue to exist underground anyway. What we need is to stop voting for idiot politicians.
As long as good politicians feel they'll be disadvantaged if they aren't selling themselves like the idiot ones are the good ones will line up for the money.
Certainly it's better to outlaw it rather than to simply allow it to happen. You will never catch 100% of the people breaking the law, but you can create an environment of transparency and accountability to help and you can make it costly enough for those who are caught to make the next person reconsider risking it.
lobbying is illegal in many countries yet it does not make corruption dissappear, far from it. Its like the war on drugs: it makes cartels stronger, if anything.
What about creating a "Direct Democracy Lobbying Group" that lets citizens donate/vote online on issues and then (legally) bribes the appropriate people with total transparency?
The depressing thing about most bribery is how small the amounts of money are. Politicians take bribes in the form of campaign financing because they want to stay in power. It's easy for them to rationalize if they think they're serving the greater good, and many of them would probably prefer to take money from citizens instead.
It seems like one super rich person could fix every level of US politics by implementing a backdoor direct democracy and seeding it with matching donations. If crowdfunding has proven anything, it's that people have more than enough money to spend when they want something.
It's only now that everyone is on the internet that this idea is even possible, and no one has tried it yet.
We have a group sort of like that in Australia, Getup (not bribing but lobbying). The current sitting party is trying to get it deemed as a political party as it consistently lobbies against government policy (policy which is consistently against the will and interests of the public).
Well to be fair, it's difficult to be an educated voter since the candidates are allowed to say whatever they want in the election period and aren't beholden to follow through with the terms they were elected for.
I've always looked at money's influence in politics as a sort of balanced system, like the house and senate. We need both equal access to politics and proportional access to politics based on resources. Otherwise, democracy devolves into two me's and a Jeff Bezos voting on who pays for my stuff.
> We need both equal access to politics and proportional access to politics based on resources. Otherwise, democracy devolves into two me's and a Jeff Bezos voting on who pays for my stuff.
I've actually considered that, because it's effectively the status quo, but then I conclude: Why should wealthy people have special proportional access? There are so many more groups who are so much more at risk: Small business? Orphans? Groups facing systemic discrimination (women, minorities, LGBTQ)? Homeless? Minority party members in solid red/blue districts? People with rare diseases? With unpopular political beliefs? OpenBSD users? Wealthy people already have so much power and so many advantages; they might be the absolute last group that needs special protection.
Mike Mulvaney, former House Rep and Trump's destroyer of agencies, said out loud that when he was in Congress he said out loud that he wouldn't talk to anyone unless they made a donation to his campaign. He also said out loud that other members of Congress should do the same.
Yes; if lobbying were truly reduced/eliminated across the board, at least they'd have an even playing field. Loopholes will inevitably be used by those with the most money and power.
Would "should be considered" be more appropriate wording and less hyperbolic? I'm being serious.
I think cash contributions for legislation fundamentally subvert our democracy, and my comment was intended to raise that point for discussion. I don't see discussion of the perversion of democracy as unsubstantive.
Not really, no - you need to expand on the why in order to have some sort of substantive discussion (especially when using politically loaded language).
Lobbying in its positive form is about experts trying to explain things to representatives that don't understand the specifics of the field. When done right a representative should get perspective from different areas and be able to understand the issues/regulations that are being discussed from multiple parties that have their own different incentives.
Your comment that's it's 'treasonous' absent any discussion doesn't really offer any explanation of how congressional representatives are supposed to be informed about any subject they don't already know about.
People that do this work are going to be paid by the companies trying to explain things.
I would argue that the advent of PAC's and Citizens United has more or less obsoleted the positive case--which you're right, I don't object too. What I mean is, if I'm a politician and two lobbyist show up "explaining" if I listen to the one from a PAC with the briefcase full of campaign contributions, in the next election I'm more likely to stay a politician, so there's now a selective pressure toward corruption on politicians. The same goes for promises of lucrative jobs (Ajit Pai). So lobbying in some senses is collapsing toward the lowest common denominator because the "positive form" players have their cards trumped.
Yeah I agree that that's a problem (you'd probably like the video I linked in my original comment and his book Republic Lost).
I heard an interview on the Stay Tuned podcast (Preet Bharara's podcast) where he interviewed one of the lawyers that argued the winning side of citizen's united. It was an interesting interview and an over simplified summary was that the influence of campaign contributions which come from concentrated groups is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with, but putting government restrictions on speech in order to do it sets a dangerous precedent (at what point are you rich enough where you're no longer allowed to participate in political speech?).
> Treason against the United States, shall consist [...] in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
If you assume the US is a democracy[0], ie that its enemies are the enemies of its citizens, rather than its nobility^Wgovernment, then any politician who passes laws at the request of (or otherwise Aids and Comforts) eg Facebook, Dow Chemical, [insert human-rights-violating corporation here], is de facto guilty of treason.
You could certainly argue that treason means something other than what the constitution says it does, but taken at face value this is rather obvious.
0: If you don't, then that's a different discussion.
This is a dramatic oversimplification and somewhat beside the point.
The US is a republic/representative democracy, but that aside working with organizations to pass laws isn't zero sum - laws can be good for organizations and the public. If Google is lobbying to prevent the government from passing key escrow laws that weaken encryption that's better for everyone.
These companies are also made up of citizens and a part of the society (not enemies of the government or the people) - working with experts in the field to try and understand things better isn't 'de facto treason'.