[opportune]

so is this just a slippery slope argument saying we should let super-corporations/billionaires write laws just in case a teachers union tries to pass legislation?

>Imagine a law that made life better for 80% of people, but made 20% worse off - should it be implemented? What about 2% better off, 98% worse off, but the worst off 2% amongst us benefited?

Wow it's almost like this is what politics is about. We might as well give up completely because it's way too hard to do math or let people make decisions

[dahfizz]

I think the argument here is that the platitudes like "no lobbying" and "do what's best for everyone" hide a lot of complexity and are basically meaningless / unhelpful.

[kortilla]

Nope, it’s not a slippery slope argument if op is pointing out that there is no rational demarcation between the NRA, a teachers union, a women’s rights organization, and an industry group.

You can counter with a proposed solution if you can think of one. So far nobody has managed to do it.

[CoryG89]

I understand the point, but I don't accept that no one has a better solution. How about we just making it illegal to bribe politicians with money, regardless of what group is doing it? Why is it that bribery laws we already have on the books should not apply to lobbyists?

[imgabe]

It is illegal to bribe politicians with money. There are reams and reams of laws and regulations about what politicians are allowed to accept, from whom, and when. The bribery laws do apply to lobbyists as well.

Really, it's a matter of campaign finance reform. As long as people and corporations can make "donations" to a campaign, it will never go away. Eliminate all independent campaign donations. Allot every candidate a fixed budget from the government. That would probably go a long way towards fixing the problem.

Even then you still have super PACs. Maybe I can't give money directly to Joe Candidate. But can you make a law telling me it's illegal for me to take out an ad saying I support Joe Candidate without throwing out the First Amendment? So far, the Supreme Court says you can't.

[rayiner]

Direct corporate contributions to campaigns is illegal. It's also illegal, even under Citizens United, to say "if you do X, we will run adds in favor of your election."

[rayiner]

The bribery laws we have on the books do apply to lobbyists; it's just that what lobbyists do isn't bribery. Because corporations are legally prohibited from donating to candidates, the exchange of money is not part of lobbying. When you hear "Google spent $X million lobbying" that means they paid lobbyists $X million to make presentations and submit whitepapers and draft legislation to the staff of legislators. (How do you spend millions of dollars on a PowerPoint presentation? The same way you can spend millions of dollars on a legal filing.)