Why? What is the benefit to the public good of allowing corporations to use their massive resources to shape legislation to benefit them at the expense of the general public?
Generally industries are much better than random politicians at predicting the consequences of rules. Obviously it isn’t good if the rules being made are entirely in the interests of incumbents, but it’s also bad if the rules don’t make sense or ignore the realities of some industry or technology. Even ignoring lobbying, you see regulators reaching out for comments from industry about new rules.
Though perhaps lobbying (as practiced or in general) should still be considered inappropriate.
> Generally industries are much better than random politicians at predicting the consequences of rules
This is true but when people are talking about restricting lobbying the kind of lobbying they want to restrict isn’t companies saying “hey this policy isn’t good for us”. It’s companies spending millions of dollars on donations and advertising to force politicians to make laws that benefit them. It’s possible to restrict the second kind without impacting the first kind, for example by implementing spending limits.
The article linked at the top of this thread is the former thing. But maybe that’s not relevant.
Aren’t the rules on donations made by companies pretty restricted in the US? Isn’t it normally that companies persuade their employees to give to some company pac (as a deduction from their paycheck) and that pac then makes maximum campaign contributions to various politicians. (The limits on both contributions to the pac and to campaigns are pretty small. On the order of $5k. It seems unlikely to matter much to a politician but maybe they do care).
Maybe you’re not talking about the US or maybe I’m wrong or there is some other mechanism I don’t understand
> It’s companies spending millions of dollars on donations and advertising to force politicians to make laws that benefit them
They aren't forcing. They'd just rather take the money than not. If politicians weren't corrupt, we'd only have the first kind of lobbying, as no one will spend money on something that doesn't work.
Industries are also better with regard to conflict of interest in that there is no conflict, they just have interests which are entirely separate from those of the public.
> Even ignoring lobbying, you see regulators reaching out for comments from industry about new rules.
Yet somehow the only times those "comments from industry" are taken into consideration in a meaningful way is when they come from large businesses with deep pockets or astroturf consumer interest groups funded by large businesses with deep pockets. Genuine grassroots consumer interest groups rarely leave a mark.
Because individuals have a Constitutional right to petition their representatives and that right doesn't magically disappear when they decide to do it as a group of individuals?
Though perhaps lobbying (as practiced or in general) should still be considered inappropriate.