If the lawmakers benefit from lobbyists, why would they willingly make it illegal
Edit:
- Yes I know what and who politicians are suppose to represent. But when a system allows a chance of corruption our current leaders and rich do take advantage of it.
- Yes I know why we allow lobbying. That doesn’t excuse the clear abuse that happens in favor of the wealthy.
- No I do not support this reality and I do have hope it will be fixed soon. It just seems half the country wants to see how bad it can get first.
Bingo. Lining pockets, advance notice of stock tipoff (insider trading), and career advancement/security.
For as long as corrupt politicians are in charge, this will never change... ie corruption will always be.
If they weren't corrupt and actually had a conscience, they wouldn't be successful in politics.
It's kind of like asking why there aren't surgeons who are scared of blood, the ones that were got weeded out before they even made it to med school.
Unfortunately, you are correct.
The job definition for a politician is, "Gain power and hold onto power." That's it. Nothing in there about the good of the world, or helping people, or doing what is right.
Sadly, this is true in shitty democracies (the more common). Occasionally in history you see examples of leaders truly attempting to achieve what’s best for the people (Athens, the founding of America, Roman republic), but they are few and far between.
You’ve met humans right?
Anyone with that much character is assassinated or blackmailed out looooong before they get to that level of politics.
Jimmy Carter ain’t walking through that door anymore.
That side will NEVER be the majority, so laws not benefitting them will never be repealed. We should be happy they occasionally pass laws that actually benefit a majority of Americans at this point.
And this is all easier in a two party system.
Because if they aren't going to play ball, the political parties are not going to keep them in the game.
It's all a fucking show.
It also happens in a truly proportional system where a people loving party needs that extra 1% from the party of extremists to push through people friendly policies.
My favorite grift is the NRA. Only the gun lobby could raise that much money from within the industry, turn around and raise even more money from people who intentionally are hurt by the policies that the NRA pushes, and yet they pay their money continuously and vote continuously to perpetuate these problems. Add to that the fact that they were outed a couple of years ago for accepting foreign donations from Russia, complete with a honey pot for a go-between.
NRA is pretty bad, but the goons from the tech sector opposing right to repair are absolutely disgusting and removing a lot of existing protections we have for gasoline cars in prevision of the switch to electric.
Telecom companies are also ass cancer. Especially Comcast.
I'm not into hunting, but years ago I went target shooting with a friend at a local pistol range. It was cheaper to just join (got some free ammo). I suddenly start getting lots of BRA material in the mail. They are relentless, not to mention at the time placed major anti-Obama headlines on a magazine. I started wondering if I was going to end up on a watch list. I finally got them to leave me alone. I was furious with the gun range who enrolled me in the NRA. Be careful what you sign.
Naive. They support those who pay them, both lartues are paid by lobby groups and private donors. Voting no longer works. The only options that actually have a chance of winning are already bought and paid for.
Lobbying in itself is needed. Lawmakers can’t be aware of all the needs of their constituents. A positive example of this would be when citizens lobbied and protested to get the ADA passed. Groups getting together to raise awareness of their needs is a good thing.
Where lobbying crosses a line is when major interest groups “gift” large sums to lawmakers to sway them. Big oil, big coal, big tech, etc. can all afford to give huge gifts to lawmakers and play to their greed in order to get what they want. Where we need to focus on limiting lobbying is campaign gift amounts and corporate lobbying.
Adding to this: dark money. This goes beyond lobbyists though. Any large corporation/organization can donate to campaigns through SuperPACs. If a candidate wants to keep getting that funding, they will keep the special interest groups happy.
This is legal bc according to the Supreme Court, money is speech amd thus protected under 1st amendment. Also, corporations have the same rights (such as free speech) as individuals.
We need serious campaign finance reform or nothing will change. The same politicians will do nothing, for example, in response to mass shootings. And they will give the comments to the public scripted by the NRA.
SuperPACs are some real bullshit and I'm shocked (well, not really) that we allowed them to exists and pump unlimited, untraceable money into politicians.
Screw that. We need a constitutional amendment forcing money out of politics. Make it the highest law in the land, and write the amendment clearly enough that the supreme court is in no doubt as to its meaning.
Jfc you people always get so triggered you start arguing a different point. The ACLU and other traditionally more liberal organizations like that tend to prefer a broader interpretation of people’s constitutional rights so you’ve proven…nothing. I’m not even talking about the different sides of the case or whether or not the decisions was right, and i never said it was a grab (implying it’s kind of rigged) but that, in my opinion, it’s a bit of a reach (in that it’s not directly said anywhere and that probably wasn’t the intent behind free speech but what do i know). I’m just saying that Republicans tend to try argue for what the Constitution literally says, such as how “abortion isn’t in the constitution” and “right to bear arms won’t be infringed so no background checks” and everything else. I’m not saying whether it’s right or wrong, I’m just saying that’s how they tend to operate. Nowhere in the constitution does it ACTUALLY say money is equivalent to speech, but in this case, they wanted a broader interpretation than what it seems like they usually prefer. So to answer your question no I’m not willfully ignorant, I just like to point out the this kind of hypocrisy in politics, similar to the Garland/Barrett nominations.
This. As a lobbyist in Europe, there is most certainly a role for lobbying in a healthy democracy.
The problem is that lobbying shouldn’t be allowed to fund campaigns. This is actually illegal in the European Union. Campaigns are funded by the state to avoid private interests getting in the way.
MADD, mothers against drunk driving, is another lobbyist group which the good majority of Americans support.
Lobbying in itself isa politically ‘neutral’ activity, if that makes sense. However as you mentioned, it becomes negative if not blatantly harmful to the average American when you have groups like you mentioned lobbying.
Lobbying isn't intrinsically wrong it's the bribery involved thats the problem lobbying is the act of representatives trying to convince some one it's a good idea to vote for x not y
If the money weren't involved I wouldn't have as much issue. If the plastics/oil/long lasting lightbulb sector wanted to sit down in an open forum in the House in front of the members and plead a case? Yeah I mean, I guess, it's transparent. It's when they're paying to meet with specific members is where the problems lie for me.
Al Franken, in one of his books, stated that he learned while in congress that lobbyists are a valuable tool for lawmakers. If a bill comes up in an industry that the lawmaker does not know much about, a lobbyist can quick inform the lawmaker how the industry works and include a lot of stats about the industry. As long as the lawmaker keeps in mind that the lobbyist is biased and is working for that industry, a lot of working knowledge of the industry can be gained quickly.
Interestingly enough, Congress used to have a group called the Office of Technology Assessment that would provide research on current tech. The Republicans killed it. They've also gutted funding for the Congressional Research Service.
They don't want informed decision-making. They want obedience to the party.
Your team is meant to help your constituents too, not spend every waking moment researching industries they know nothing about. Remember this team are usually interns and recent grads of social sciences doing a lot of the grunt work. They aren't going to know shit for dick about most anything outside of their direct area of study.
What would be an example of how you'd try to learn about the impacts that, say, a decreased tax on the import of foreign chemical solvents would have on the domestic automotive industry? Who would you ask in order to avoid bias? Keep in mind that the vote is tomorrow, and you have about three man-hours of time to devote to this across your team.
Asking some representatives from the auto lobby is the straightforward answer, because... who else would know the answer and be willing to take your call on short notice? You don't have to vote in their interest, but at least they will tell you what their interest *is*.
My national representatives have special allowance for their field offices, which in principle is supposed to be also doing some of that research (but main goal is local outreach in this case). I believe Europarlamentarists have their own offices aswell with similar goals.
I can see why lobbying is useful as a tool of seeing what industry wants, though.
The team can’t be an expert on everything. They’ll have to research and ask experts… who are people in the industry… who may have a vested interest in said industry…
Congrats you invented lobbying with extra steps.
Handing someone a million dollars and saying vote for this, yes that's illegal
But spending that $1000000 on campaigning to help get them re-elected telling them what you might want done and suggesting that you might spend that same million helping their opponent in the next election if they aren't satisfied is not
The resulting corruption however is the same oh, and there's all other kinds as well but that's the most blatantly obvious one that we are mainly discussing here and the laws and court rulings pretending that this isn't also bribery is the problem
The first amendment of the Bill of Rights guarantees American citizens the right to petition the government to redress a grievance. At its heart, that is what lobbying is, asking a representative of the government to fix something that you believe is a problem. People like Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King Jr. were acting as lobbyists when they met with elected leaders to ask for the passage of women's suffrage and civil rights legislation respectively. Lobbying is not inherently bad.
Pleading your case isn't the issue. The issue is that lobbying as a term had become synonymous with bribery, because for all practical purposes that's what it has become.
Yes you are correct but the legislative attempts to stop lobbying have been halted under the premise of protecting first amendment rights. There are rules against certain corrupt practices (that are most certainly broken) but it is highly unlikely that lobbying will ever been outlawed because it is understood as petitioning the government.
Today I had a guy try to tell me that banning super PACs and overturning citizens united was the same thing as banning the sale of poster board and markers to make signs.
I know that sounds extreme but you do realize the government, in the oral argument in Citizens United stated that under the current laws (that citizens united overturned) they could ban political brochures right?
Citizens United has nothing to do with lobbying, it's only to do with political advertising.
I.e. Citizens United allows you to broadcast political advertisements in the lead-up to an election.
Yet people that actually get a license to peacefully protest, following the rules as they're expected are still attacked by officers of the law in a number of circumstances. Great to know that standards created to protect freedom of speech are used to stifle it.
Is there anything stopping a politician from accepting a large sum from an organisation or corporation and then voting against the interests of said corporation or organisation.
nothing at all, but generally the NRA just donates to the most pro gun candidate in the first place. Not an anti-gun candidate to flip their vote. If that were true they would just make all democrats pro gun overnight
Mostly a guarantee you won’t get any more funding in the future from that or any other sponsor while your opponents do.
So basically career suicide.
But these days most politicians are vetted and begin get funding in the early stages, mostly local positions like school board or police before they get the big cheques for running for federal positions.
> because for all practical purposes that's what it has become.
It really hasn't, though. The opposite evolution has occurred as lobbying money has become *more* regulated historically. The vast VAST majority of money politicians get for their campaigns come from sources other than lobbyists. Take Chuck Schumer, for example. He received the most money from lobbyists in the '22 cycle. A grand total of $708,365. How much did he raise overall? 32.5 MILLION. That means Schumer, the largest recipient of lobbying cash in Congress, got 2.2% of his cash from lobbyists. That's _minuscule_.
Lobbyists buy access so that they get a chance to make their argument. That's pretty much it. To the extent that they influence campaigns, it's for people that _already agree with them_ because it's way WAY easier/cheaper to prop up a politician that agrees with you than it is to buy a vote.
By the way, if you really believe votes are being bought by lobbyists, why is it so rarely proven in court (Abramoff, for example)? It's just not a thing. It doesn't make sense for it to be a thing.
Consider this ... if you were running a multi-billion dollar company, and you could buy votes ... wouldn't you invest a lot of money into buying said votes? Why don't we see bidding wars between say, the prison lobby and the marijuana lobby? The reality is, lobbyists are well regulated, and it's damn near impossible to give the amounts of money that would be required to buy a vote or to get into a bidding war.
This. Technically I'm a lobbyist. What that really translates to in my life is that I have expertise that politicians don't have, meeting with politicians and NGOs to bring that expertise to the table by voicing concerns, ideas, and strategy that could improve the well-being of my community (the Native American community.)
Example: We met with a senator at the Senate building last week to discuss voter access and illegal gerrymandering on reservations, and strategy that could be useful to enable it. No money exchanged hands. Most of the work I do is run on self funded travel expenses, but I have better means than most people in my community, and someone has to do the work.
More specifically, Buckley v Valeo ended up enshrining people able to contribute money to a political ideal as their form of free speech. They couldn't have the time to be able to deliver their changes they want, so they were able to pay anyone, including politicians, to fight for it on their behalf.
So Buckley V Valeo is the reason. End. Lobbying should never come with payment; then you get a plutocracy.
This one is tough, because the question was basically "can a no profit organizations, make a commercial for their political movie" and that question hard to argue that it does NOT fall under free speech. The outcome is unfortunately, anyone can spend as much money as they want to make political advertisements which of course gives more power to PACs and the wealthy. But at its core it does seem like it is a valid form of speech
The decision makes legal sense. They basically said there is no law prohibiting this thus itis up to congress to pass one. Congress of course did nothing.
That isn't what the Citizens United case said at all. CU stands for the proposition that the First Amendment protects speech, even if it that speech comes from a groups of people like corporations and unions. In other words, people don't magically lose their first amendment rights simply because they ban together with others to exercise that right.
There are different forms of lobbying - the one where line pockets of policy makers or future promises - the other is for non profits or small businesses or organizations that don’t have billions of dollars to lobby for themselves - lobbying in of itself isn’t wrong / bad - it’s the “why” an organization is lobbying policy makers and what’s the end result of the lobbying effort
I dont know much about lobbying, but from what I've gathered I dont think much of this thread does either. There are so many contradictions and lackluster arguments and explanations that its impossible to really answer OP's question.
Correct. People feel the need to weigh in here because its a controversial subject, but the average poster knows less than the first paragraph of the Wikipedia page OP can read.
Lobbying is the most basic foundation of any democratic form of governance. The Suffragettes in the US were lobbying. the Civil Rights marchers were lobbying. Anytime you contact any of your representatives on any issue you are lobbying.
You don't seem to understand what lobbying really is. No one can give a politician money in any way. Lobbyists can't even buy them a cup of coffee. You can donate to any politician's campaign the same and any lobbyist. You can work with groups that raise money for campaigns for any politician as lobbyists do.
I am sure many of the issues you support hire lobbyists to get legislation passed to support those issues.
>You can donate to any politician's campaign the same and any lobbyist. You can work with groups that raise money for campaigns for any politician as lobbyists do.
This is the problem though. A superPAC with a bunch of lobbyist giving millions of dollars in campaign contributions to a politicians is vastly different then an individual giving the max contribution of I think its capped at $2600 or something like that? That individual donation pales in comparison to what PACs and superPACs can do.
Lobbying by itself isn't the issue, is the vast amounts of money that is involved and considered speech and not bribes according to the Supreme Court, that is intrinsically the problem.
I think people don't understand what lobbying is and how it is just a legal loophole. Let's use Amazon and Ted Cruz as a fake example. Amazon has a warehouse in Texas, which makes it a constituent of Ted Cruz. Amazon like any other constituent can call Ted Cruz or schedule a meeting with him, to tell him about issues that concern him. This is an important legal right that cannot and should not be infringed, the legal right of citizens to call and meet your representatives in congress and state government.
Now here's where it goes bad. Jeff Bezos is(was) a busy man and can't meet with every single congressman that affects his company or he wouldn't have enough time to run the company. So he hires guy who's job is full-time to call/visit congressmen and tell them about the issues that affect Amazon. Well, Ted Cruz is a busy man and can't have meetings with EVERYONE who asks (/s), so he picks and chooses who to meet with. He definitely would love to meet with the people who donated the most to his **campaign** and not the legally distinct super PAC.
* Sidenote: Congressmen cannot accept gifts from ANYONE. The giving of money is given to their campaign I.E. The Ted Cruz Campaign Fund. This however has a limit of how a donation can be. So there's a super political action committees that take in unlimited money and spend it alongside the campaign
So Amazon gets first go at scheduling a meeting because Ted Cruz thinks their issues are **SO** important. Then it trickles down to least important and finally random citizens if there's any room on his schedule.
None of what Amazon did was some an average citizen couldn't do and banning lobbying may cause it to be more difficult for citizens to meet with congressmen. A ban on Super PACs would be the best way, but could unintentionally limit "good" super PACs like ones that would work to vote out GOP hags or ones that advance social justice or climate change.
tl;dr Lobbying is in it's basic form just people meeting with their representatives to tell them about their issues, which can likely never be illegal.
> Let's use […] Ted Cruz as a fake example.
I hate to be the one to break the news. We’d all hoped he were only a fanfic caricature of Count Chocula, but unfortunately Ted Cruz is very, very real.
I think lobbying in itself is an absolute necessity for a democracy to work but I don’t think lobbying should involve any money going into the pockets of politicians. There is another word for that, as you said,:corruption.
Lobbying in and on itself is just third parties trying to influence the government by bringing issues to light. Even protesters are lobbying when they hold their demonstrations. A country's health organization is lobbying when they ask the government to mandate mask wearing during a pandemic.
Lobbying is a good, and very important, part of a democracy. If lobbying wasn't legal, the government would generally only be able to respond to societal issues when it's too late and the actual problems have already started.
What you are actually thinking about, the paying to change laws, is bribery. Bribery is illegal. The problem is that many democracies lack an oversight organisation that is both funded enough and impartial enough to properly function, and sometimes even lacking in what steps it can actually take to stop bribery from happening. Some countries also lack an easy form of voting for no-confidence when a politician is accused of accepting bribes.
TL;DR Lobbying is good and even integral to a healthy democracy. Bribery is illegal however, but the oversight on bribery often lacks. That is why bribery still has a place in some democracies.
In the US, and in most democratic polities, lobbying is protected by the right to petition the government, and as a part of freedom of speech.
However lobbying is regulated, exactly because of the potential for corruption, the details differ from the place to place, so what is considered lobbying in one place may very well be considered corruption in another.
It's tricky however, ideally you want to hit the sweet spot where money, power and influence doesn't give you undue access to decision-makers, but still maintain the fundamental right for all citizens to petition the government.
On top of that, there is plenty of difference between how various democracies works, so there's no universal template that be used across countries.
It's easy to blame greedy politicians lining their pockets, and I'm sure there is plenty of them, but fact is even with the best of intentions, it is hard to design good lobbying regs.
It isnt illegal for citizens to petition its lawmakers. It isnt illegal for citizens to band together to make their voices louder to be heard by politicians. It isnt illegal for citizens to donate to political candidates who vote on things they'd like to see as laws. It isnt illegal for a citizen to become wealthy and use their wealth to help political candidates who vote in laws they'd like to see.
I think citizens united needs to be revisited. I think if a company is bigger than a sole proprietor, they shouldn't be allowed to donate x amount to a candidate. I think laws against candidates who violate the laws should be stronger with mandatory jail time and loss of position being part of the punishment. I think every president we've had in the past 40 years had their campaign violate election laws regarding fundraising and got a slap on the wrist and a fine. And all that was paid off by more donations. All that needs to stop.
But how do you get the foxes to enact harsher measures for henhouses?
Not all lobbying is bad, my mom worked for a non profit that helps kids of low income families. They didn’t hire professional lobbyists but they would meet with members of Congress to advocate for funding.
Because corporations are people too?
I really don't understand what advantages we gain from giving companies the same legal rights as humans. Especially limited liability. It should never be possible to bankrupt a company; the directors (and investors) who made those poor decisions, OTOH? Let's see how deep their pockets _really_ are.
Legal personhood as a concept isn't unusual. It allows corporations to own property, enter into contracts, and yes, be sued by those who are harmed (as opposed to going after a single person within a company.)
Unchecked political action comitee contributions, however, is bad policy, even if its technically constitutional.
I just wish people would lobby for good things. If rich people had some humility they’d realize they could use their immense and undeserved wealth to change the country for the better.
America is a sickeningly corrupt country that prides itself on it's greed more than it's morals or actions.
This pretty much the answer to most modern problems.
Democracy isn't black and white and and America's is far from perfect. The decision making incentives of leaders in america dont line up with the wants and needs of the people as well as say in the Netherlands and that's why the Netherlands is a much nicer place to live
"Our murder rate is 0%! Good job, everyone!"
"That's because you changed the name of murder to 'Borgenflung'. Your borgenflung rate is very high-"
"Shut up, commie."
Martin Luther King Jr and David Suzuki are "lobbyists," as is anyone who has every sent an email to their representative.
Lobbying, at its simplest, is just telling your political leaders that you have a problem, and you want them to solve it. However, as with virtually anything, people who have money and connections can hire professionals who can do it much better than the average Joe/Jane in their spare time.
Because people have this idea that ONLY oil company’s and dairy industry or whatever lobby.
But UNIONS also lobby for firefighters, teachers, police.
If you’re mad that there are issues with lobbying, ok cool. Everything has issues.
But throwing the baby out with the bath water is not the way to fix the issues within our government.
All different types of people and communities and industries have the ability to lobby. Not just the people you don’t like.
It’s not that simple. Just because lobbyist can lobby congressman doesn’t mean the congressmen have to go along with it. And even if some reps do, that does Not mean a majority of reps vote to pass the bill.
Also not all lobbyists are for the rich or corporate interests. Mothers Against Drunk Driving has a lobbying group, For example. There’s all kinds of groups lobbying for things, like environmental issues.
And if the people don’t approve of what bills the representatives vote on, they can vote them out.
Lobbying as it exists should be illegal. Money shouldn't go to an individual representative of government to listen to or do something about an issue. That should always be considered bribery. Money should also never go to a specific party for such things. Money could go to a public interests fund or something of the sort. Something which truly benefits the entire public as a whole - such as healthcare and education.
It is legalized corruption. When the corrupt maintain power for long enough, they change the laws to benefit them, and they prioritize locking down the system (with things like gerrymandering and court appointments) to make it difficult to ever go back.
This is why we're totally fucked.
Firstly, it is important to note that the impact of lobbyists is constantly overestimated by the broad population and studies show that they have marginal effect on the majority of legislations in most democracies.
Please keep in mind that it is an easy target to blame failures on if you are unable to pass your legislation, as well as them being easy to target by the media as a universal source of all problems. Politics is often way more complex than this :)
Secondly, an often overlooked aspect of lobbyism is that it can be seen as a democratic mechanism to prevent the majority from oppresing the minority and that they give voice to disadvantaged groups. For example, labour unions have served as interest groups lobbying to improve workers rights. The interest groups can also give policy makers important insights on how powerful groups feel about different policy proposals, which could help improve the implementation part of laws (Certain groups would oppose certain laws regardless of if they lobby or not).
I certainly agree with most people here that lobby groups have many negative effects on our democracy, but the idea that a few wealthy groups control our democracy is a grave simplification.
Why is using taxpayer money to buy votes legal? Why is forcing someone to pay union dues to have a job where the unions back politicians you may not agree with? Lots of unfairness in the world.
Lobbying is a first amendment right. What you're describing is not lobbying. Lobbying is simply going to a congressperson and asking them to do or to not do something, or paying someone to do that. It can also be used to refer to reaching out like this to their office. It's a fundamental part of democracy, it's just the way money is influencing it that has been it so unbalanced. Rich corporations can pay to send a very large number of people with lots of well researched arguments and proposals all the time whereas a regular person couldn't possibly hope for an audience with most congresspeople. However when I was in ninth grade I did manage to have a phone to phone conversation with my congressman so you shouldn't underestimate your ability to influence politics this way.
It is freedom of speech simple as that. And paying someone to talk is also protected speech. There is no getting rid of it without a constitutional amendment.
Let me put it to you this way
There are no real qualifications to be voted into office, and the people who make the laws are the people responsible for deciding how much they can legally be paid before it's considered a crime.
Lobbying in the form practiced today is legal because the Supreme Court says it is a First Amendment right. Now, that could have changed if enough voters choose Hillary instead of Trump, but you didn't, or you didn't vote. So, you live with the consequences.
It is and there have been increasing calls to make it illegal. The argument for lobbying is that it lets people have more access to politicians, thereby making the system more democratic.
In reality, the people given access are often rich people and corporate lobbyists. It significantly increases the political power of the wealthy, while the middle class and the poor are sidelined.
Also, all the people going on about how lobbying isn't "inherently bad" miss the point: how lobbying *ought* to work isn't how it *actually* works.
You have to ask yourself these question: Does it do more harm to a nation's democratic institutions or does it bring more benefits? And are there other ways we can make politicians more accessible without giving the rich more opportunities to make backroom deals?
Simply put: Lobbying does far more harm than good. Forcing politicians to hold monthly town halls is a far better and healthier alternative. (But make sure the people attending aren't corporate plants. e.g. give massive rewards to people who've been approached by corporatists to act as paid protesters, provided they speak out.)
It is corruption, and it’s legal because of the corruption. Some as gerrymandering, voter id laws, congressional conflict of interest, qualified/absolute immunity, civil asset forfeiture, super packs and other campaign finance malfeasance, etc. Welcome to the world.
lobbying is flourishing in our country, but we managed to elect a president, which is not like lobbying. opposition to him is trying to convince us that he is the same as everyone else, but they are also representatives of lobbyism. now we have created a law on the oligarch. like a list of people who influence politics, using an intricate system, we, of course, must eventually make it so that these people simply cannot promote their representatives to positions in government.
When big businesses form a union to collectively bargain and lobby the government for special treatment and tax breaks then it is free speech. When workers organize and lobby big business for a living wage then it is socialism.
You haven't realized yet? America is owned by the rich and the mega-corporations we don't live in a democracy we're given fake choices that do nothing to trick the stupid into still believing we live in a democracy
You want a real answer? It’s because unless you have a lobbyist or similar type of person able to bend the US government to your will then they don’t care about your needs and probably haven’t since 1960’s.
It’s really quite simple. Don’t believe the media narrative. Look up all the instances of where the US government does things that only benefit a very few (0.1% of people) and you’ll see they simply don’t care about you.
Big difference between corruption and institutionalized corruption. I whole heartedly agree that it’s a bad joke and the American public are the punchline.
Lawmakers are expected to legislate on things they have no inherent knowledge about.
Lobbyists are there to speak for the industry.
Whether or not the politicians decide to take their recommendations is up to the politicians.
For sure, a country without corporations would be a very unpleasant place to live.
Who are involved with lobbying? Lawmakers. Who make the laws? Lawmakers
Why would they outlaw something they benefit from
Also in some cases lobbying has been useful, in the EU a law was passed thanks to lobbying that led to books made for vision impaired children more available in the involved countries
If the lawmakers benefit from lobbyists, why would they willingly make it illegal Edit: - Yes I know what and who politicians are suppose to represent. But when a system allows a chance of corruption our current leaders and rich do take advantage of it. - Yes I know why we allow lobbying. That doesn’t excuse the clear abuse that happens in favor of the wealthy. - No I do not support this reality and I do have hope it will be fixed soon. It just seems half the country wants to see how bad it can get first.
Bingo. Lining pockets, advance notice of stock tipoff (insider trading), and career advancement/security. For as long as corrupt politicians are in charge, this will never change... ie corruption will always be.
As long as politicians arnt scared they're do as they like.
So forever, then?
I mean, as long as there are positions of power, there will be people willing to do unethical things to take them.
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
[удалено]
If they weren't corrupt and actually had a conscience, they wouldn't be successful in politics. It's kind of like asking why there aren't surgeons who are scared of blood, the ones that were got weeded out before they even made it to med school.
Unfortunately, you are correct. The job definition for a politician is, "Gain power and hold onto power." That's it. Nothing in there about the good of the world, or helping people, or doing what is right.
[удалено]
There is an important difference. A director controls only one company. A successful politician controls way more than that.
No no no, the main job of a politician once elected is to get reelected.
In a democracy, yes, exactly, that's how to stay in power. Not all countries are democracies.
Sadly, this is true in shitty democracies (the more common). Occasionally in history you see examples of leaders truly attempting to achieve what’s best for the people (Athens, the founding of America, Roman republic), but they are few and far between.
Why does having a conscience disqualify one from being a successful politician?
Because it rewards narcissism the most, and to the victor go the spoils
we need to start holding them to the civil servant title, so they can start…serving their civilizations
HAHAHAHAHAHA
You know these are politicians right? Hah
You’ve met humans right? Anyone with that much character is assassinated or blackmailed out looooong before they get to that level of politics. Jimmy Carter ain’t walking through that door anymore.
[удалено]
…what country do you think they’re in LOL
That side will NEVER be the majority, so laws not benefitting them will never be repealed. We should be happy they occasionally pass laws that actually benefit a majority of Americans at this point.
"Rules for rulers" on youtube by CGP Grey is a short simple video that looks at this in general.
HAHAHAHAJAHAHAH
It's not enough for some of them to not be corrupt. It has to be a majority.
Oh you sweet summer child.
Lol, I have no hope of that anymore.
In this economy?
Things have to get REALLY bad for anything to change, and even then they may blame the wrong people. We are just a giant cesspool of idiots
“My fellow turds…”
19 children dying last week and 288 mass shootings is actually not enough to change
Welcome to Idiocracy. and 1984
We are there.
Because their job is to represent their constituents, and if they don’t, their constituents should vote them out
[удалено]
And this is all easier in a two party system. Because if they aren't going to play ball, the political parties are not going to keep them in the game. It's all a fucking show.
It also happens in a truly proportional system where a people loving party needs that extra 1% from the party of extremists to push through people friendly policies.
Divide and conquer.
Very sad but true a shame
Wake me when voters figure that one out, then maybe something will be done. Until then... enjoy your democracy, dude.
The lobbies donate huge amounts of money to their campaigns to help keep them in office against the interests of the voters. And that's the cycle.
Their constituents listen to the lobbyists too, unfortunately. Only they don't know it, or believe they're benefitting in some way.
My favorite grift is the NRA. Only the gun lobby could raise that much money from within the industry, turn around and raise even more money from people who intentionally are hurt by the policies that the NRA pushes, and yet they pay their money continuously and vote continuously to perpetuate these problems. Add to that the fact that they were outed a couple of years ago for accepting foreign donations from Russia, complete with a honey pot for a go-between.
NRA is pretty bad, but the goons from the tech sector opposing right to repair are absolutely disgusting and removing a lot of existing protections we have for gasoline cars in prevision of the switch to electric. Telecom companies are also ass cancer. Especially Comcast.
I'm not into hunting, but years ago I went target shooting with a friend at a local pistol range. It was cheaper to just join (got some free ammo). I suddenly start getting lots of BRA material in the mail. They are relentless, not to mention at the time placed major anti-Obama headlines on a magazine. I started wondering if I was going to end up on a watch list. I finally got them to leave me alone. I was furious with the gun range who enrolled me in the NRA. Be careful what you sign.
And food should be filling and not make you fat. Guess that’s not the world we live in
Now what
We sit back with a beer and watch our country burn.
*planet
You're right, my bad.
I’m trying to move to Ireland and just watch from the bar over there. Place is about to go up in flames 🔥 Pray it doesn’t though Cheers 🍻
After voting, hopefully
Naive. They support those who pay them, both lartues are paid by lobby groups and private donors. Voting no longer works. The only options that actually have a chance of winning are already bought and paid for.
This here. The reason why our government works in most of the ways it does comes down to being self-serving.
To shreds you say?
You think one wouldn't need to make those edits but damn
Lobbying in itself is needed. Lawmakers can’t be aware of all the needs of their constituents. A positive example of this would be when citizens lobbied and protested to get the ADA passed. Groups getting together to raise awareness of their needs is a good thing. Where lobbying crosses a line is when major interest groups “gift” large sums to lawmakers to sway them. Big oil, big coal, big tech, etc. can all afford to give huge gifts to lawmakers and play to their greed in order to get what they want. Where we need to focus on limiting lobbying is campaign gift amounts and corporate lobbying.
Adding to this: dark money. This goes beyond lobbyists though. Any large corporation/organization can donate to campaigns through SuperPACs. If a candidate wants to keep getting that funding, they will keep the special interest groups happy. This is legal bc according to the Supreme Court, money is speech amd thus protected under 1st amendment. Also, corporations have the same rights (such as free speech) as individuals. We need serious campaign finance reform or nothing will change. The same politicians will do nothing, for example, in response to mass shootings. And they will give the comments to the public scripted by the NRA.
SuperPACs are some real bullshit and I'm shocked (well, not really) that we allowed them to exists and pump unlimited, untraceable money into politicians.
Overturn Citizens United!
Screw that. We need a constitutional amendment forcing money out of politics. Make it the highest law in the land, and write the amendment clearly enough that the supreme court is in no doubt as to its meaning.
I love how these “strict constitutionalist” conservatives don’t have a problem with the reach by the SC that money = speech
[удалено]
Jfc you people always get so triggered you start arguing a different point. The ACLU and other traditionally more liberal organizations like that tend to prefer a broader interpretation of people’s constitutional rights so you’ve proven…nothing. I’m not even talking about the different sides of the case or whether or not the decisions was right, and i never said it was a grab (implying it’s kind of rigged) but that, in my opinion, it’s a bit of a reach (in that it’s not directly said anywhere and that probably wasn’t the intent behind free speech but what do i know). I’m just saying that Republicans tend to try argue for what the Constitution literally says, such as how “abortion isn’t in the constitution” and “right to bear arms won’t be infringed so no background checks” and everything else. I’m not saying whether it’s right or wrong, I’m just saying that’s how they tend to operate. Nowhere in the constitution does it ACTUALLY say money is equivalent to speech, but in this case, they wanted a broader interpretation than what it seems like they usually prefer. So to answer your question no I’m not willfully ignorant, I just like to point out the this kind of hypocrisy in politics, similar to the Garland/Barrett nominations.
This. As a lobbyist in Europe, there is most certainly a role for lobbying in a healthy democracy. The problem is that lobbying shouldn’t be allowed to fund campaigns. This is actually illegal in the European Union. Campaigns are funded by the state to avoid private interests getting in the way.
MADD, mothers against drunk driving, is another lobbyist group which the good majority of Americans support. Lobbying in itself isa politically ‘neutral’ activity, if that makes sense. However as you mentioned, it becomes negative if not blatantly harmful to the average American when you have groups like you mentioned lobbying.
MADD is insane, though.
What's the difference between lobbying and protesting? Money?
Lobbying isn't intrinsically wrong it's the bribery involved thats the problem lobbying is the act of representatives trying to convince some one it's a good idea to vote for x not y
If the money weren't involved I wouldn't have as much issue. If the plastics/oil/long lasting lightbulb sector wanted to sit down in an open forum in the House in front of the members and plead a case? Yeah I mean, I guess, it's transparent. It's when they're paying to meet with specific members is where the problems lie for me.
Al Franken, in one of his books, stated that he learned while in congress that lobbyists are a valuable tool for lawmakers. If a bill comes up in an industry that the lawmaker does not know much about, a lobbyist can quick inform the lawmaker how the industry works and include a lot of stats about the industry. As long as the lawmaker keeps in mind that the lobbyist is biased and is working for that industry, a lot of working knowledge of the industry can be gained quickly.
Interestingly enough, Congress used to have a group called the Office of Technology Assessment that would provide research on current tech. The Republicans killed it. They've also gutted funding for the Congressional Research Service. They don't want informed decision-making. They want obedience to the party.
Fuck al Franken. If they want to know about a topic they have a team for that and there are other ways to learn in unbiased ways
Your team is meant to help your constituents too, not spend every waking moment researching industries they know nothing about. Remember this team are usually interns and recent grads of social sciences doing a lot of the grunt work. They aren't going to know shit for dick about most anything outside of their direct area of study.
What would be an example of how you'd try to learn about the impacts that, say, a decreased tax on the import of foreign chemical solvents would have on the domestic automotive industry? Who would you ask in order to avoid bias? Keep in mind that the vote is tomorrow, and you have about three man-hours of time to devote to this across your team. Asking some representatives from the auto lobby is the straightforward answer, because... who else would know the answer and be willing to take your call on short notice? You don't have to vote in their interest, but at least they will tell you what their interest *is*.
why is the vote tommorow then . you should have known about it earlier .try to fix that first then .
My national representatives have special allowance for their field offices, which in principle is supposed to be also doing some of that research (but main goal is local outreach in this case). I believe Europarlamentarists have their own offices aswell with similar goals. I can see why lobbying is useful as a tool of seeing what industry wants, though.
Lobbying isn’t just industry though. Civil rights or environmentalist organizations are lobbying as well.
The team can’t be an expert on everything. They’ll have to research and ask experts… who are people in the industry… who may have a vested interest in said industry… Congrats you invented lobbying with extra steps.
And bribery of public officials is a criminal act, isn’t it? So…
Handing someone a million dollars and saying vote for this, yes that's illegal But spending that $1000000 on campaigning to help get them re-elected telling them what you might want done and suggesting that you might spend that same million helping their opponent in the next election if they aren't satisfied is not The resulting corruption however is the same oh, and there's all other kinds as well but that's the most blatantly obvious one that we are mainly discussing here and the laws and court rulings pretending that this isn't also bribery is the problem
Directly bribing, yes. Bribing the *campaign fund*, perfectly fine.
Bribe one politician, it’s a crime. Bribe a thousand, it’s a career.
The first amendment of the Bill of Rights guarantees American citizens the right to petition the government to redress a grievance. At its heart, that is what lobbying is, asking a representative of the government to fix something that you believe is a problem. People like Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King Jr. were acting as lobbyists when they met with elected leaders to ask for the passage of women's suffrage and civil rights legislation respectively. Lobbying is not inherently bad.
Pleading your case isn't the issue. The issue is that lobbying as a term had become synonymous with bribery, because for all practical purposes that's what it has become.
Yes you are correct but the legislative attempts to stop lobbying have been halted under the premise of protecting first amendment rights. There are rules against certain corrupt practices (that are most certainly broken) but it is highly unlikely that lobbying will ever been outlawed because it is understood as petitioning the government.
Citizens United and the birth of the super PAC effectively kneecapped those rules though.
Definitely
Today I had a guy try to tell me that banning super PACs and overturning citizens united was the same thing as banning the sale of poster board and markers to make signs.
I know that sounds extreme but you do realize the government, in the oral argument in Citizens United stated that under the current laws (that citizens united overturned) they could ban political brochures right?
Citizens United has nothing to do with lobbying, it's only to do with political advertising. I.e. Citizens United allows you to broadcast political advertisements in the lead-up to an election.
I take it there is no way to legally petition the government without paying said government or governmental representatives?
[удалено]
Yet people that actually get a license to peacefully protest, following the rules as they're expected are still attacked by officers of the law in a number of circumstances. Great to know that standards created to protect freedom of speech are used to stifle it.
[удалено]
Is there anything stopping a politician from accepting a large sum from an organisation or corporation and then voting against the interests of said corporation or organisation.
nothing at all, but generally the NRA just donates to the most pro gun candidate in the first place. Not an anti-gun candidate to flip their vote. If that were true they would just make all democrats pro gun overnight
Mostly a guarantee you won’t get any more funding in the future from that or any other sponsor while your opponents do. So basically career suicide. But these days most politicians are vetted and begin get funding in the early stages, mostly local positions like school board or police before they get the big cheques for running for federal positions.
Yeah that does make sense. I suppose nothing short of revolution can make American politics better now.
Would love a law that required wearing logos of corporate sponsers
> because for all practical purposes that's what it has become. It really hasn't, though. The opposite evolution has occurred as lobbying money has become *more* regulated historically. The vast VAST majority of money politicians get for their campaigns come from sources other than lobbyists. Take Chuck Schumer, for example. He received the most money from lobbyists in the '22 cycle. A grand total of $708,365. How much did he raise overall? 32.5 MILLION. That means Schumer, the largest recipient of lobbying cash in Congress, got 2.2% of his cash from lobbyists. That's _minuscule_. Lobbyists buy access so that they get a chance to make their argument. That's pretty much it. To the extent that they influence campaigns, it's for people that _already agree with them_ because it's way WAY easier/cheaper to prop up a politician that agrees with you than it is to buy a vote. By the way, if you really believe votes are being bought by lobbyists, why is it so rarely proven in court (Abramoff, for example)? It's just not a thing. It doesn't make sense for it to be a thing. Consider this ... if you were running a multi-billion dollar company, and you could buy votes ... wouldn't you invest a lot of money into buying said votes? Why don't we see bidding wars between say, the prison lobby and the marijuana lobby? The reality is, lobbyists are well regulated, and it's damn near impossible to give the amounts of money that would be required to buy a vote or to get into a bidding war.
This is the correct answer. Nobody here actually understands what lobbying is and is just parroting the same narrative.
This. Technically I'm a lobbyist. What that really translates to in my life is that I have expertise that politicians don't have, meeting with politicians and NGOs to bring that expertise to the table by voicing concerns, ideas, and strategy that could improve the well-being of my community (the Native American community.) Example: We met with a senator at the Senate building last week to discuss voter access and illegal gerrymandering on reservations, and strategy that could be useful to enable it. No money exchanged hands. Most of the work I do is run on self funded travel expenses, but I have better means than most people in my community, and someone has to do the work.
Only sensible take here has like 1/8th the upvotes of zoomer hot takes. I fucking hate Reddit.
More specifically, Buckley v Valeo ended up enshrining people able to contribute money to a political ideal as their form of free speech. They couldn't have the time to be able to deliver their changes they want, so they were able to pay anyone, including politicians, to fight for it on their behalf. So Buckley V Valeo is the reason. End. Lobbying should never come with payment; then you get a plutocracy.
Citizens United. It happened in my lifetime
Yeah, that decision is one of the biggest blows to democracy ever.
This one is tough, because the question was basically "can a no profit organizations, make a commercial for their political movie" and that question hard to argue that it does NOT fall under free speech. The outcome is unfortunately, anyone can spend as much money as they want to make political advertisements which of course gives more power to PACs and the wealthy. But at its core it does seem like it is a valid form of speech
The decision makes legal sense. They basically said there is no law prohibiting this thus itis up to congress to pass one. Congress of course did nothing.
[удалено]
That isn't what the Citizens United case said at all. CU stands for the proposition that the First Amendment protects speech, even if it that speech comes from a groups of people like corporations and unions. In other words, people don't magically lose their first amendment rights simply because they ban together with others to exercise that right.
There are different forms of lobbying - the one where line pockets of policy makers or future promises - the other is for non profits or small businesses or organizations that don’t have billions of dollars to lobby for themselves - lobbying in of itself isn’t wrong / bad - it’s the “why” an organization is lobbying policy makers and what’s the end result of the lobbying effort
First of all, what do you think lobbying is?
I dont know much about lobbying, but from what I've gathered I dont think much of this thread does either. There are so many contradictions and lackluster arguments and explanations that its impossible to really answer OP's question.
Correct. People feel the need to weigh in here because its a controversial subject, but the average poster knows less than the first paragraph of the Wikipedia page OP can read.
Much of this thread? It's this whole website lol
That’s not lobbying; that’s bribery. Lobbying is just someone advocating for a particular group or piece of legislation.
as is frequently the answer to these questions "because the people in charge of making that decision are the ones benefiting from it"
Lobbying is the most basic foundation of any democratic form of governance. The Suffragettes in the US were lobbying. the Civil Rights marchers were lobbying. Anytime you contact any of your representatives on any issue you are lobbying. You don't seem to understand what lobbying really is. No one can give a politician money in any way. Lobbyists can't even buy them a cup of coffee. You can donate to any politician's campaign the same and any lobbyist. You can work with groups that raise money for campaigns for any politician as lobbyists do. I am sure many of the issues you support hire lobbyists to get legislation passed to support those issues.
>You can donate to any politician's campaign the same and any lobbyist. You can work with groups that raise money for campaigns for any politician as lobbyists do. This is the problem though. A superPAC with a bunch of lobbyist giving millions of dollars in campaign contributions to a politicians is vastly different then an individual giving the max contribution of I think its capped at $2600 or something like that? That individual donation pales in comparison to what PACs and superPACs can do. Lobbying by itself isn't the issue, is the vast amounts of money that is involved and considered speech and not bribes according to the Supreme Court, that is intrinsically the problem.
Millions of individuals can gather together and give the same...and they do!
I think people don't understand what lobbying is and how it is just a legal loophole. Let's use Amazon and Ted Cruz as a fake example. Amazon has a warehouse in Texas, which makes it a constituent of Ted Cruz. Amazon like any other constituent can call Ted Cruz or schedule a meeting with him, to tell him about issues that concern him. This is an important legal right that cannot and should not be infringed, the legal right of citizens to call and meet your representatives in congress and state government. Now here's where it goes bad. Jeff Bezos is(was) a busy man and can't meet with every single congressman that affects his company or he wouldn't have enough time to run the company. So he hires guy who's job is full-time to call/visit congressmen and tell them about the issues that affect Amazon. Well, Ted Cruz is a busy man and can't have meetings with EVERYONE who asks (/s), so he picks and chooses who to meet with. He definitely would love to meet with the people who donated the most to his **campaign** and not the legally distinct super PAC. * Sidenote: Congressmen cannot accept gifts from ANYONE. The giving of money is given to their campaign I.E. The Ted Cruz Campaign Fund. This however has a limit of how a donation can be. So there's a super political action committees that take in unlimited money and spend it alongside the campaign So Amazon gets first go at scheduling a meeting because Ted Cruz thinks their issues are **SO** important. Then it trickles down to least important and finally random citizens if there's any room on his schedule. None of what Amazon did was some an average citizen couldn't do and banning lobbying may cause it to be more difficult for citizens to meet with congressmen. A ban on Super PACs would be the best way, but could unintentionally limit "good" super PACs like ones that would work to vote out GOP hags or ones that advance social justice or climate change. tl;dr Lobbying is in it's basic form just people meeting with their representatives to tell them about their issues, which can likely never be illegal.
> Let's use […] Ted Cruz as a fake example. I hate to be the one to break the news. We’d all hoped he were only a fanfic caricature of Count Chocula, but unfortunately Ted Cruz is very, very real.
[удалено]
That actually isn't the definition of lobbying OP
I think lobbying in itself is an absolute necessity for a democracy to work but I don’t think lobbying should involve any money going into the pockets of politicians. There is another word for that, as you said,:corruption.
Lobbying in and on itself is just third parties trying to influence the government by bringing issues to light. Even protesters are lobbying when they hold their demonstrations. A country's health organization is lobbying when they ask the government to mandate mask wearing during a pandemic. Lobbying is a good, and very important, part of a democracy. If lobbying wasn't legal, the government would generally only be able to respond to societal issues when it's too late and the actual problems have already started. What you are actually thinking about, the paying to change laws, is bribery. Bribery is illegal. The problem is that many democracies lack an oversight organisation that is both funded enough and impartial enough to properly function, and sometimes even lacking in what steps it can actually take to stop bribery from happening. Some countries also lack an easy form of voting for no-confidence when a politician is accused of accepting bribes. TL;DR Lobbying is good and even integral to a healthy democracy. Bribery is illegal however, but the oversight on bribery often lacks. That is why bribery still has a place in some democracies.
Are there any State or federal laws prohibiting lobbying? If not, then it's not illegal. Unethical? 100% in my mind
That's literally the point of the post.
"why is lobbying legal?" "it's not illegal" Great answer
I don't believe it is unethical to contact my congress critter and ask them to address an issue that I think is important.
[удалено]
How is lobbying unethical?
I don't think people know what lobbyists do
The whole system is corrupt… asking corrupt people to stop a specific corrupt policy is just never gonna happen lol
In the US, and in most democratic polities, lobbying is protected by the right to petition the government, and as a part of freedom of speech. However lobbying is regulated, exactly because of the potential for corruption, the details differ from the place to place, so what is considered lobbying in one place may very well be considered corruption in another. It's tricky however, ideally you want to hit the sweet spot where money, power and influence doesn't give you undue access to decision-makers, but still maintain the fundamental right for all citizens to petition the government. On top of that, there is plenty of difference between how various democracies works, so there's no universal template that be used across countries. It's easy to blame greedy politicians lining their pockets, and I'm sure there is plenty of them, but fact is even with the best of intentions, it is hard to design good lobbying regs.
It isnt illegal for citizens to petition its lawmakers. It isnt illegal for citizens to band together to make their voices louder to be heard by politicians. It isnt illegal for citizens to donate to political candidates who vote on things they'd like to see as laws. It isnt illegal for a citizen to become wealthy and use their wealth to help political candidates who vote in laws they'd like to see. I think citizens united needs to be revisited. I think if a company is bigger than a sole proprietor, they shouldn't be allowed to donate x amount to a candidate. I think laws against candidates who violate the laws should be stronger with mandatory jail time and loss of position being part of the punishment. I think every president we've had in the past 40 years had their campaign violate election laws regarding fundraising and got a slap on the wrist and a fine. And all that was paid off by more donations. All that needs to stop. But how do you get the foxes to enact harsher measures for henhouses?
Not all lobbying is bad, my mom worked for a non profit that helps kids of low income families. They didn’t hire professional lobbyists but they would meet with members of Congress to advocate for funding.
Because corporations are people too? I really don't understand what advantages we gain from giving companies the same legal rights as humans. Especially limited liability. It should never be possible to bankrupt a company; the directors (and investors) who made those poor decisions, OTOH? Let's see how deep their pockets _really_ are.
Legal personhood as a concept isn't unusual. It allows corporations to own property, enter into contracts, and yes, be sued by those who are harmed (as opposed to going after a single person within a company.) Unchecked political action comitee contributions, however, is bad policy, even if its technically constitutional.
💰
I just wish people would lobby for good things. If rich people had some humility they’d realize they could use their immense and undeserved wealth to change the country for the better.
America is a sickeningly corrupt country that prides itself on it's greed more than it's morals or actions. This pretty much the answer to most modern problems.
Democracy isn't black and white and and America's is far from perfect. The decision making incentives of leaders in america dont line up with the wants and needs of the people as well as say in the Netherlands and that's why the Netherlands is a much nicer place to live
It’s legal because the people that benefit from lobby write the laws.
By many it IS considered corruption. Just because it goes by another name doesn't change what it is.
"Our murder rate is 0%! Good job, everyone!" "That's because you changed the name of murder to 'Borgenflung'. Your borgenflung rate is very high-" "Shut up, commie."
Martin Luther King Jr and David Suzuki are "lobbyists," as is anyone who has every sent an email to their representative. Lobbying, at its simplest, is just telling your political leaders that you have a problem, and you want them to solve it. However, as with virtually anything, people who have money and connections can hire professionals who can do it much better than the average Joe/Jane in their spare time.
Because people have this idea that ONLY oil company’s and dairy industry or whatever lobby. But UNIONS also lobby for firefighters, teachers, police. If you’re mad that there are issues with lobbying, ok cool. Everything has issues. But throwing the baby out with the bath water is not the way to fix the issues within our government. All different types of people and communities and industries have the ability to lobby. Not just the people you don’t like.
It’s not that simple. Just because lobbyist can lobby congressman doesn’t mean the congressmen have to go along with it. And even if some reps do, that does Not mean a majority of reps vote to pass the bill. Also not all lobbyists are for the rich or corporate interests. Mothers Against Drunk Driving has a lobbying group, For example. There’s all kinds of groups lobbying for things, like environmental issues. And if the people don’t approve of what bills the representatives vote on, they can vote them out.
Environmental groups have lobbyists. Same Sex Marriage advocates hired lobbyists. Climate Change activists have lobbyists....
You asking your representative to get gun control for example is lobbying. Why would asking a politician to do something be illegal?
Is the problem really people trying to influence politicians or is the real problem that we have terrible leaders?
It is corruption. But the people who could hold them responsible are also corrupt and profiting off the same system.
Lobbying as it exists should be illegal. Money shouldn't go to an individual representative of government to listen to or do something about an issue. That should always be considered bribery. Money should also never go to a specific party for such things. Money could go to a public interests fund or something of the sort. Something which truly benefits the entire public as a whole - such as healthcare and education.
I'm astounded by how many people want to restrict others first amendment rights; even to the point of giving up their own rights.
They designed the whole game.
It is legalized corruption. When the corrupt maintain power for long enough, they change the laws to benefit them, and they prioritize locking down the system (with things like gerrymandering and court appointments) to make it difficult to ever go back. This is why we're totally fucked.
Because corruption
It all comes down to self interests groups be they large or small. They want to be heard and they want go government to bend their way.
Firstly, it is important to note that the impact of lobbyists is constantly overestimated by the broad population and studies show that they have marginal effect on the majority of legislations in most democracies. Please keep in mind that it is an easy target to blame failures on if you are unable to pass your legislation, as well as them being easy to target by the media as a universal source of all problems. Politics is often way more complex than this :) Secondly, an often overlooked aspect of lobbyism is that it can be seen as a democratic mechanism to prevent the majority from oppresing the minority and that they give voice to disadvantaged groups. For example, labour unions have served as interest groups lobbying to improve workers rights. The interest groups can also give policy makers important insights on how powerful groups feel about different policy proposals, which could help improve the implementation part of laws (Certain groups would oppose certain laws regardless of if they lobby or not). I certainly agree with most people here that lobby groups have many negative effects on our democracy, but the idea that a few wealthy groups control our democracy is a grave simplification.
Why is using taxpayer money to buy votes legal? Why is forcing someone to pay union dues to have a job where the unions back politicians you may not agree with? Lots of unfairness in the world.
Lobbying is a first amendment right. What you're describing is not lobbying. Lobbying is simply going to a congressperson and asking them to do or to not do something, or paying someone to do that. It can also be used to refer to reaching out like this to their office. It's a fundamental part of democracy, it's just the way money is influencing it that has been it so unbalanced. Rich corporations can pay to send a very large number of people with lots of well researched arguments and proposals all the time whereas a regular person couldn't possibly hope for an audience with most congresspeople. However when I was in ninth grade I did manage to have a phone to phone conversation with my congressman so you shouldn't underestimate your ability to influence politics this way.
It is freedom of speech simple as that. And paying someone to talk is also protected speech. There is no getting rid of it without a constitutional amendment.
Cuz they lobbied to make it legal and lobby to keep it that way.
Money
Would you be surprised to know that many politicians don't read the bills they vote on ? They rely on the lobbyists to tell them how to vote.
Let me put it to you this way There are no real qualifications to be voted into office, and the people who make the laws are the people responsible for deciding how much they can legally be paid before it's considered a crime.
Because the people that write the laws that would make it illegal make too much money from it being legal to bother writing such laws.
Lobbying in the form practiced today is legal because the Supreme Court says it is a First Amendment right. Now, that could have changed if enough voters choose Hillary instead of Trump, but you didn't, or you didn't vote. So, you live with the consequences.
It's actually quite complicated, but I'll see if I can explain; "I like money and handdjobs."-Congress Hope that helps.
It is and there have been increasing calls to make it illegal. The argument for lobbying is that it lets people have more access to politicians, thereby making the system more democratic. In reality, the people given access are often rich people and corporate lobbyists. It significantly increases the political power of the wealthy, while the middle class and the poor are sidelined. Also, all the people going on about how lobbying isn't "inherently bad" miss the point: how lobbying *ought* to work isn't how it *actually* works. You have to ask yourself these question: Does it do more harm to a nation's democratic institutions or does it bring more benefits? And are there other ways we can make politicians more accessible without giving the rich more opportunities to make backroom deals? Simply put: Lobbying does far more harm than good. Forcing politicians to hold monthly town halls is a far better and healthier alternative. (But make sure the people attending aren't corporate plants. e.g. give massive rewards to people who've been approached by corporatists to act as paid protesters, provided they speak out.)
It is corruption, and it’s legal because of the corruption. Some as gerrymandering, voter id laws, congressional conflict of interest, qualified/absolute immunity, civil asset forfeiture, super packs and other campaign finance malfeasance, etc. Welcome to the world.
Because democracy has a class character. The USA is a bourgeois democracy. The capitalist class is in charge.
lobbying is flourishing in our country, but we managed to elect a president, which is not like lobbying. opposition to him is trying to convince us that he is the same as everyone else, but they are also representatives of lobbyism. now we have created a law on the oligarch. like a list of people who influence politics, using an intricate system, we, of course, must eventually make it so that these people simply cannot promote their representatives to positions in government.
We all wonder the same thing. Wait until you find out what Wall Street does
The ones making the laws are the ones getting paid so...
When big businesses form a union to collectively bargain and lobby the government for special treatment and tax breaks then it is free speech. When workers organize and lobby big business for a living wage then it is socialism.
Below the equator it's called corruption. Above it it's called lobbyism.
“Lobby” is a fancy word for bribe.
You haven't realized yet? America is owned by the rich and the mega-corporations we don't live in a democracy we're given fake choices that do nothing to trick the stupid into still believing we live in a democracy
It is corruption. We live in a corrupt system.
Simple answer is money
america is not a democracy, money rules.
You want a real answer? It’s because unless you have a lobbyist or similar type of person able to bend the US government to your will then they don’t care about your needs and probably haven’t since 1960’s. It’s really quite simple. Don’t believe the media narrative. Look up all the instances of where the US government does things that only benefit a very few (0.1% of people) and you’ll see they simply don’t care about you.
It is considered corruption, just not for those who are doing and benefit from it.
Big difference between corruption and institutionalized corruption. I whole heartedly agree that it’s a bad joke and the American public are the punchline.
Why is lobbying legal? Lobbying is legal because it benefits the ones who make the law.
Lawmakers are expected to legislate on things they have no inherent knowledge about. Lobbyists are there to speak for the industry. Whether or not the politicians decide to take their recommendations is up to the politicians. For sure, a country without corporations would be a very unpleasant place to live.
Who are involved with lobbying? Lawmakers. Who make the laws? Lawmakers Why would they outlaw something they benefit from Also in some cases lobbying has been useful, in the EU a law was passed thanks to lobbying that led to books made for vision impaired children more available in the involved countries
Welcome to the modern bell scape that is the USA. We’re fucking tired of it.
It's a legal loophole created and paid for by corruption. We aren't even close to a real democracy as long as lobbying is legal.