[crazygringo]

> Lobbying is legalized bribery

That's an unhelpful take. Bribery as defined by law is inherently illegal, and lobbying is defined by law as legal, so legalized bribery is nonsensical. It can't exist.

On the other hand, there are certainly arguments to be made for why lobbying can feel anti-democratic. But they come smack up against rights to freedom of speech, association, etc.

It's incredibly difficult to draw the lines here for what is "democratic" and "anti-democratic", where "legitimate democratic politics" turns into "corruption". All of democracy is about individuals and groups trying to influence candidates and politicians, and providing or withholding support to do so, and candidates and politicians actively seeking support of individuals and groups via policy.

Fortunately, we've decided that some lines are relatively easy to draw: politicians can solicit/receive contributions for campaigns, but not personally. But what you're arguing against doesn't have any kind of clear line. Federal money and tax breaks go to lots of different groups, and lots of different groups lobby. It's hard to see how that either of those should be illegal, or how tying them together could be made illegal, without the end result being even more anti-democratic.

[noworriesnate]

> so legalized bribery is nonsensical

I don't think the concept of legalized bribery is difficult to understand. Yes, it's legal. I'm saying that it shouldn't be.

Democracy, or more specifically representative democracy, is a form of government where elected persons represent the people. The problem with lobbying is that to the degree that lobbying happens, the people are represented less and those paying the lobbyists are represented more. This causes an obvious conflict of interests.

You might think that the degree of lobbying happening in Washington is fairly small. In 2021, $3.77B was spent on lobbyists[1], and the combined salaries of all representatives and senators was around $93m. That means that on average, each representative makes $174,000 pre-tax, and has over $7m spent to buy their vote on various issues. Every. Single. Year.

That's how stark the problem is. Solving the problem is hard of course--I think that might be your point?--and definitely something that requires a lot of thought and discussion. Even if you made lobbying illegal, a huge percentage of that money is going to go underground and find other ways of influencing Congress.

[1] https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/summary

[Mathnerd314]

The point is they have different definitions:

bribery - transfer of value in exchange for official action.

lobbying - communicating with an official for purposes of influencing official action, not including providing public testimony or legally required communications

Legalizing bribery would allow transfer of value. Generally information is considered free, so has no value, so lobbying is not a transfer of value and hence is not bribery (legalized or otherwise). If you want to argue that lobbyists are giving officials hot stock tips that make the officials millions, hence information has value, I suppose it's possible, but it doesn't seem like the issue you're addressing.

What you seem to dislike is that many people are paid to push laws. But this isn't much different from other forms of sales - every company has a marketing department that tries to lobby potential customers. There is no obligation to buy and similarly the politician has no obligation to enact the suggested changes. But without direct communication it seems like it would be hard to enact sound policy. I don't see any obvious alternatives to lobbying to get the required information besides a massive "big brother" government surveillance program that tries to identify potential problems with big data and solve them before they happen.

[crazygringo]

> The problem with lobbying is that to the degree that lobbying happens, the people are represented less and those paying the lobbyists are represented more... You might think that the degree of lobbying happening in Washington is fairly small.

Believe me, I know how much lobbying there is, I've studied it a bit academically. Which is why I'm taking issue with how you're characterizing it.

Corporations have legitimate democratic/governance concerns. E.g. there can be outdated regulations unfairly hampering their ability to do business or innovate. They need to be able to bring their concerns to politicians, the same way pro-choicers donate to Planned Parenthood to lobby, or environmentalists donate to Greenpeace to lobby on behalf of the environment, or gun rights advocates with the NRA.

Your claim that lobbying is in conflict with "the people" is categorically false, as "the people" lobby as well via lots of organizations, such as the ones I've just listed. "The people" also have interests in corporations not being unfairly burdened.

The notion of making lobbying illegal is utterly anti-democratic. The idea that you could outlaw voluntary domestic organizations from trying to support democratic candidates flies in the face of what makes democracy work, whether those organizations are non-profit or for-profit.

The more relevant issue seems to be more with the notion that corporations have more money to lobby with than the general population does. However even with that, some academic research suggests that the issue isn't so much to do with money, but rather the fact that corporations often lobby on behalf of niche/arcane issues such as specific corporate regulations that voters are often virtually entirely unaware of. So it's not so much corporations vs. "the people", but corporations vs. "the people don't even care", or corporations vs. other corporations.

[pessimizer]

> That's an unhelpful take. Bribery as defined by law is inherently illegal, and lobbying is defined by law as legal, so legalized bribery is nonsensical. It can't exist.

That depends on if you think getting rid of bribery laws gets rid of bribery. If you do feel that way, you're very compatible with Illinois state bribery law, which allows anything outside of a written or recorded quid pro quo. But you're out of step with people who think laws should be made for a purpose, rather than our purpose being to follow laws.