[gonehome]

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.

Political contributions to campaigns are a different issue and I think do pose a corrupting influence, this talk does a good job explaining the issue: https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_...

[ericb]

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.

[gonehome]

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?).

Anyway - thanks for clarifying.

[clairity]

> “...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”

that’s an interesting perspective on citizen’s united worth mulling over.

but while speech is free from governmental limits, it is not protected from the response of other citizens. it’s still problematic that political contributions can be hidden behind organizations to shield the wealthy from the consequences of their speech.

citizens—nay, people—are equal in the eyes of the constitution (as affirmed in the bill of rights), and moneyed citizens are not entitled to unequal, government-protected veils from such consequences.

this is part of the larger discussion around who gets a public (media) voice and in what proportion. it seems an argument can be made that constitutionally, that proportion should correlate to the population (one person, one vote; not one dollar, one vote). we can defer to representatives to voice our opinions for us, but they should do so with only the aggregate backing of the citizens standing behind them. (then you also have to deal with the tyranny of the majority issues arising therefrom).

[gonehome]

I agree that you shouldn't be able to obscure where the speech is coming from - some of the laws around television ads were supposed to help with this, but because of the organization thing you mention they're mostly of the form "paid for by people for a better tomorrow" or something else equally useless.

Ultimately I think that was what the decision was about - that there need to be better controls and fixes for how campaign finance currently works, but that the citizen's united solution (that lost) was not the safe way to do it.

[a1369209993]

> you need to expand on the why

The US Constitution defines treason thus:

> 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.

[gonehome]

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'.