[adkadskhj]

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.

[alistairSH]

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.

[tehjoker]

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.

[alistairSH]

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.

[tehjoker]

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.

[adkadskhj]

Fair - but this is an example where if money makes the wheels move more cleanly via lobbying, then those "people" will be the only ones heard.

Organizing millions of poor people to financially compete with lobbyist funds seems a losing battle.

[chrisseaton]

> Organizing millions of poor people to financially compete with lobbyist funds seems a losing battle.

In the UK unions run an entire political party and manage to have a lot of influence including often forming governments. It's not a losing battle.