[throwaw12]

> Lobbying expenditures are given to lobbyists not politicians. You're primarily paying for the salary of some humanities or social science majors and their travel expenses, which isn't that much money.

I don't think these are the only expenses, why should politician listen to them if lobbyists are not promising them support in next elections in the form of marketing, payments for expenses and so on

[andrewla]

> why should politician listen to them if lobbyists are not promising them support in next elections in the form of marketing, payments for expenses and so on

Mostly because those things are directly illegal. Lobbying organizations (and PACs and SuperPACs etc.) are very limited in what they can provide either as direct monetary contributions or in-kind gifts to a candidate. The restrictions here are basically the same as those on an individual, but usually with more strict reporting requirements and lower limits.

The marketing aspect is the only thing that they can legally provide, and that's less a lobbying function than a PAC function, and they are not allowed to coordinate with the campaign or the candidate on this.

[qwytw]

Well a funding a PAC that supports a specific candidate/party who gets elected because of that effectively accomplishes the same thing. Of course the salary the company "buys" for them isn't exactly in the same magnitude as a direct bribe could potentially be (on the upper end at least).

[istjohn]

First, the inability to coordinate with the candidate on marketing doesn't strike me as much of an obstacle to SuperPAC effectiveness. Second, the Supreme Court ruled this summer that political parties cannot be prevented from coordinating campaign spending with candidates in NRSC vs FEC.

[testing22321]

> Mostly because those things are directly illegal

Ah yes, said politician will just host a $100,000 a head luncheon so nobody is “bribing” them. That would be dirty.

[andrewla]

Yes, you're right, they could just do this, and then spend the rest of their term thrown out of Congress and rotting in prison.

That is, they can hold such a lunch, but they can't pocket the money personally or even have the money contributed towards their campaign. Pocketing the money personally is just bribery, having it contribute to their campaign would violate the contribution limits (typically ~$10,000 per election max, though less than that in reality because the limit is split between primary and general).

You're right to be slightly suspicious because these lunches do exist. But they don't go to the campaign or the candidate, they can go to PACs and SuperPACs or to the party. In tern, PACs and SuperPACs cannot give this money to the candidate or the campaign (same limits as above with higher reporting requirements) and cannot coordinate campaign messaging.

This is not to say that corruption doesn't exist -- just that this simplistic form of it does not exist. You'll have to dig deeper than looking at lobbying activities to find the actual corruption, and it's usually masked in revolving door arrangements, speaking fees, and bulk sales of vanity books. But none of that can go through the typical lobbying system because it's too tightly regulated and tracked.

[6510]

> A federal jury convicted Menendez on 16 felony counts. These included bribery, extortion, conspiracy, wire fraud, obstruction of justice, and acting as a foreign agent.

Seems you have to go all out before the comprendes?

[Aunche]

It's not as if being elected is the end all and be all to being a politician. Politicians have a vague idea of how they want to shape society, but they can't be experts in completely unrelated subjects of healthcare, military, AI infrastructure etc. A good lobbyist will help a politician achieve these goals in the field of their expertise (or at least try to convince the politician that they're helping).

[throwaw12]

Why lobbyist can't just present their ideas publicly, like do a public free lessons to politicians and anyone who wants to attend, if they're so eager to teach politicians?

Let them publicly say whatever they're preaching to politicians, and instead of 'funding' politicians directly, let them just teach everyone all at once.

I would love to hear what AIPAC teaches politicians

[anthuswilliams]

That's literally what 90% of lobbying is. Powerpoint presentations to Congressional staffers, econometrics research publications, policy panels and conferences, and so on. Not everything is campaign donations and super PACs.

[throwaw12]

you can be good law obeying citizen 99% of the time and in 1% of the time bribe someone to do illegal things. what's your point with 90%?

Why any lobbyists should have 1:1 time with a politician, what are they hiding?

[twoodfin]

Why any lobbyists should have 1:1 time with a politician, what are they hiding?

For one thing because it’s a right in the First Amendment, there next to freedom of religion and speech.

If you have a grievance, you have a right to petition to have it redressed. Like other rights recognized in the Constitution, courts have interpreted it broadly, to include such things as a right for a private citizen to meet 1:1 with a willing public citizen.

[anthuswilliams]

I should think the point was obvious. It's not a percentage of behavior of a single participant, it's in aggregate. The point is 90% of lobbyists are not doing anything untoward.

[balarjin]

> Why lobbyist can't just present their ideas publicly, like do a public free lessons to politicians and anyone who wants to attend

Different people (including politicians) have different priorities, assumptions, biases, etc. The argument that convinces one person won't land with someone else. The true value of a lobbyist is her ability to understand what a politician values, and present the argument that is convincing to him.

As an example: I met an EU citizen who thought fishing with hooks was immoral. It seemed cruel to her to put a hook in the fish's face. She traveled to the US to ask senators to ban it. Amazingly, she went to a few effective altruist meetups, networked her way into contacting the staff of two US senators, and managed to get meetings with both of them. But neither one introduced legislation for her.

What arguments could she have made?

  1. The vegan argument:  It is wrong to eat animals or make them suffer.

  2. The environmental case: Humans should leave nature alone.

  3. The public safety case: Some rivers have toxins that may accumulate in fish.  Only a strict licensing system can keep people from fishing in polluted rivers, selling the fish to people who don't know the river had bad stuff in it, and getting sick.

  <<I could come up with many more, but you get the idea...>>

She believed in the vegan argument. No senator agreed with her. A good lobbyist would have told her:

"Senator X cares about the environment. Make the environmental case, and he is likely to listen to you. His constituents are not interested in veganism, and he wins elections by talking about standing up for the interests of ranchers. The vegan argument will not work, do not bring it up!"

Tailoring arguments to your audience can be dishonest if you take it too far. Not tailoring your argument at all is certain to fail: US Senators are busy. Handing them a 60 item list of all possible arguments, some of which they think are crazy, will cause them to ignore you.

[throwaw12]

I don't have any issues with them teaching politicians, but nothing should be hidden from public. let them do everything in public, because public needs to know what their representatives are doing.

this is also good for documenting and tracing arguments and facts.

[Aunche]

At your job, would you like your 1 on 1s to be publicly available to the world? Are you even able to have a productive discussion when you're second guessing how other may react to what you're saying? Now imagine you're a politician with an army of enemies ready to clip anything you say out of context.

> I would love to hear what AIPAC teaches politicians

Thanks for bringing AIPAC up because it illustrates my point. AIPAC has plenty of publicly available material for you to read. It's not going particularly specific, but it most likely broadly aligns with what their lobbyists discuss with politicians: Israel is a valuable intelligence partner, aid to Israel brings stability in the Middle East, Iran is a destabilizing force that needs to be kept in check, etc.

How much merit do these arguments have? Maybe some. Maybe little at all. Even so, there is no mistaking that APAIC is talking about Earth here. The same cannot be said about the pro Palestinian side in America. "Stop funding genocide" is a fundamentally contradictory. The entire basis for a overwhelmingly better armed Israel giving Palestinians any sort of autonomy at all rests on American security commitments to Israel.

[nitwit005]

Even ignoring financial issues, people are generally willing to talk to major groups or industries. You tend not to get re-elected if you ignore everyone.

[groundzeros2015]

They are interested in learning about topics from credible people that impact businesses and voters,

If the only motivation you can ascribe is making money or relection, it is circular. Wealthy people spend money to become politicians.

[throwaw12]

> They are interested in learning about topics from credible people

Honestly, you surprised me with this statement alone. interested in learning? do you think Trump wants to learn anything from AIPAC? or Pharma lobby or Military Industrial complex?

What do politicans want to learn from Military Industrial complex or AIPAC lobby for example? What's there, that politicians don't know already?

[mr_toad]

> What's there, that politicians don't know already?

They need to be ‘reminded’ of the issues that ‘campaign contributions’ are contingent upon.

[groundzeros2015]

They want to know what voters and business leaders care about. It’s in their interest for their reputation and succees.

[balarjin]

> > They are interested in learning about topics from credible people

> Honestly, you surprised me with this statement alone. interested in learning? > do you think Trump wants to learn anything from AIPAC? > or Pharma lobby or Military Industrial complex?

Trump is unusually sure of himself. But no man rules alone: There is a massive org under every president trying to run a government. I know for a fact that people two levels of management under Trump (i.e. Trump is their manager's manager) do take meetings with people who lobby on the issue of health care policy and (for and against) military procurement. I would be shocked if people who are for/against working with Isreal are never in a room with anyone who can set policy.

Imagine that it is your job to come up with policy for a bug expensive government program: The VA hospital system, a military procurement program that buys airplanes, the part of the state department focused on MENA, etc. If someone asks to meet, claiming that they did academic/technical work which shows you can get a better result with a policy change, you will take that meeting. Examples:

  1. An MD researcher shows you can cut drug costs by switching one medication for another.

  2. An engineer has reason to believe current stealth coatings on fighter planes won't work against China's missiles in 5 years.

  3. An economist thinks that an ally (Isreal, Korea, etc.) have demographics that will stop them from being able to field an army within 20 years.

You should go into these meetings with skepticism, and there is a 90%-99% chance the person's idea is bad. But if an idea is good/correct/important, and you blew him off, your boss will be angry, and your career will be over.

Most people in government want to solve problems (and get credit for doing so). Most problems governments face have hard tradeoffs that voters don't understand/care about. Voters want unlimited healthcare at no cost to themselves, 100% success thwarting terrorists with no spying on citizens, military supremacy without paying much for weapons, etc. People asked to solve these problems are DESPERATE for new ideas to allow voters to see that they are getting good outcomes. Telling them you have a way around a hard tradeoff is music to their ears.

[groundzeros2015]

Thanks for the detailed comment. And I would describe lobbying as making sure when the opportunity arises your solution has a voice in that discussion.

Yes it sucks. But this is a human problem. Not a US gov problem.

[undersuit]

What about Crypto lobbying. What do you think switched Trump's position on cryptocurrencies, did he learn you can scam people legally?

[throwaw12]

You are right, my apologies. Indeed he learned something from them

[groundzeros2015]

I suspect he learned it was popular with his base.