Something I don’t see anyone else talking about: power. They don’t just come in and offer you a fat campaign contribution check on behalf of those they represent while strongly encouraging you to vote a certain way on that one bill that would really move the needle for them. They’re also offering executive / board positions in the companies they represent and related entities. Do your own research on EO 13770 and how that whole deal works, but it’s a lot more networking / relationship building than just a free lunch.
I'm free to donate directly to a campaign.
I'm also free to pool my resources with my neighbors and donate as a block.
Like I said (in the edit), the problem is campaign financing, not lobbying. The two are related in the US, but we can probably fix financing without impeding free speech.
I don't know if you're confusing 'lobbying' with 'bribing'? Lobbying doesn't have to involve money. It just means talking to people and trying to persuade them to your point of view, which isn't inherently dishonest or problematic.
> lobbying + firehosing campaign cash = federal power on demand
Right... but only one side of that operation is the problem!
It's like saying 'a glass of milk + cyanide capsule = death' and blaming the glass of milk!
Lobbying is a neccesary and healthy part of a functioning democracy. Do you want decisions about you and your life taken with no input from you apart from voting once every few years?
How often has a single (non-rich) constituents money been the cause of policy change?
This is comparing a gun to a nuke. Yes, you could kill just as many people with a gun, but the nuke is hyper efficient at the job. They're not the same.
Lobbyists may be akin to a policy nuke. They have an arsenal of tools from influence, to money, to unethical and sometimes illegal behavior. Their positions have become so effective that it drowns out most others.
edit: Another way to think about it is that Lobbyists have changed, i think, from the voice of a group of people to a voice instead of a group of people. Leaving many people voiceless in the face of insane capital and influence.
Another way to think about it is that Lobbyists have changed, i think, from the voice of a group of people to a voice instead of a group of people. Leaving many people voiceless in the face of insane capital and influence.
I'm not convinced this is true. If a lobbyist is not speaking on behalf of people, who are they speaking for? After all, corporations are just legal entities composed of people - with stockholders/owners, a BoD, employees, and customers.
The simple act of Joe Lobbyist meeting Congresswoman Schmidt for a coffee and chat about some topic isn't a problem. The problem is that with that cup of coffee comes an implied donation on behalf of the people Joe represents. The problem is campaign finance, not talking to our representatives.
A corporation benefits a few, is wealthy, and controls the means of production. They can make material threats and promises that ordinary people cannot by virtue of owning little except their labor.
A corporation benefits all of its owners (and hopefully its employees too, though that's not a given, sadly). In the case of Apple or Dow or Boeing, that's millions of people.
Ordinary people are free to combine their voice via unions or their own lobbyists.
Communicating with your representatives is protected speech. The problem is campaign finance.
Unfortunately, millions of people is still less than 4% of the US population generously.
Employees are a cost center. The idea is to get as much as possible for as low a cost as possible. That's business and why employees can only win if they band together because they'd like to get as much as possible for as little work as possible. Those are diametrically opposed interests. You can change that equation a lot if the employees are the owners.