[wolverine876]

> Bills are supposed to be modified to meet the demands of interest groups?

Yes! Who else's interests should they serve? I know interest groups are demonized - by powerful people who want to grab power unimpeded, but those powerful people are really tiny (but wealthy!) interests groups themselves.

Basically, interest groups represent the interests of a group of citizens. The senators can't know nearly everything themselves; they must ask people on the ground or even with the best intentions they will clumsily hurt lots of people. Who else in the population should representatives listen to? They should listen to individuals but that only represents one person.

Think of veterans groups. How does the senator understand how a bill would affect veterans? Asking one veteran helps, but not a lot. Asking someone whose career involves speaking to veterans and veterans groups nationwide for years, knows tens of thousands of them, knows their concerns inside and out, and whom they pay to represent their interests in Washington - that seems like a good step. It's not everything, but it seems really valuable.

With any interest group, there is a legitimacy question. I could start the Atlantic Deep-Sea Fishing group and claim to represent such people, but I don't know a thing about them. The legitimacy question is solved by seeing who has influence - whose voice do LGBTQ or veterans or deep-sea Atlantic fisherpeople listen to? Who do they show up for? That's the person they respect and the person with influence.

> Why does this particular interest group get to decide the fate of a bill and not, for instance some group that you and I create?

On a bill with a close support margin, lots of groups have influence and lots had influence here. Our group could too, if we represented enough people. That's a good thing. Our government should carefull craft bills to meet everyone's interests - that's by design.

[jjjjj55555]

> With any interest group, there is a legitimacy question. I could start the Atlantic Deep-Sea Fishing group and claim to represent such people, but I don't know a thing about them. The legitimacy question is solved by seeing who has influence - whose voice do LGBTQ or veterans or deep-sea Atlantic fisherpeople listen to? Who do they show up for? That's the person they respect and the person with influence.

Interest groups should pick people that the people show up for? That's what elections are for!

You've basically recreated the legislature, except you've removed the voting and the supposed accountability and transparency. You've added a layer of shadowy groups in between the people and their representatives.

[wolverine876]

What is the alternative? How do the senators learn about the legitimate needs of their constituents and of various groups?

The senator can't talk to millions of people individually.

> You've basically recreated the legislature

The legislature is not the be-all and end-all of democracy. It's part of the daily mechanism; so are citizens.

[jjjjj55555]

> The senator can't talk to millions of people individually.

Nobody is talking to millions of people individually. Least of all the lobbying groups that you're defending. But whatever critical role you feel they're playing, there's no reason why a senator and their staff can't do the same. It's literally their job. If you want to say they need more resources to do it, then I'd agree with you, sure.

> The legislature is not the be-all and end-all of democracy. It's part of the daily mechanism; so are citizens.

The lobbying groups we're talking about here are NOT talking to citizens. They aren't made up of citizens. They aren't democratic in any way. Most citizens aren't even aware that they exist.

If I go to my local LGTBTQ hangout and ask around, do you think they're all going to be in support of the bill that this LGBTQ group has now signed off on? Of course not! This group has nothing to do with them other than exploiting their cause to shake down politicians.

[wolverine876]

> But whatever critical role you feel they're playing, there's no reason why a senator and their staff can't do the same.

Each senator is going to replicate the work of every interest group in the nation? It's just not possible.

> The lobbying groups we're talking about here are NOT talking to citizens. They aren't made up of citizens. They aren't democratic in any way. Most citizens aren't even aware that they exist.

Which groups do you mean? LGBTQ groups, the ones I'm aware of (I have limited knowledge), are certainly made of citizens and talk to them.

> do you think they're all going to be in support of the bill that this LGBTQ group has now signed off on?

All of them? Nothing can be approved of by everyone. You need another standard.

> This group has nothing to do with them other than exploiting their cause to shake down politicians.

That's just an assumption. You have shown us nothing to support it. Show us some evidence.