I don't see a lot of difference between bribery to get something done and lobbying to get the law changed so you can get something done.
Note that I am equally disgusted at both of these.
Note that I am equally disgusted at both of these.
Grassroots movements organize all the time using donations from its members which they then use to send a lobbyist (a member of the org or a professional) to Washington, where they can use their personal contacts and influence to get an audience with a legislator to provide them with information. Most lobbying, I would wager, is of that form: a lobbyist simply informs the legislator about the on the ground perspective of a grassroots movement's members, a corporation, or industry group. It only becomes distasteful when a lobbyist has influence over campaign contributions or the ability to provide "perks" like hiring a politician's friends or family.
You can argue that campaign contributions are a form of bribery but there remains the big difference that in well regulated nations, all of the donations have a maximum and are tracked publicly [1][2]. In the US, all campaign spending is released publicly, both by politicians/political NGOs and campaign finance improprieties destroy political careers quite often. In the US, the FEC has the authority to enact civil penalties and the DOJ has the authority to prosecute any politicians caught willfully misusing campaign finance to better themselves. [3]
[1] http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norindsea.shtml
[2] https://www.opensecrets.org/
[3] http://www.fec.gov/ans/answers_compliance.shtml#penalties
Many seem to think it's only campaigns you don't agree with that are.
However, in the US and other countries with (relatively) developed election and legislation processes, I think there's some key differences:
Lobbying usually requires a level of policy rationalization (however disingenuous) that bribery does not. Lobbyist can say behind closed doors that they want X for selfish reasons, but in order for it to be politically tenable the legislator usually will require at least some publicly defensible rationalization for the action.
Similarly, lobbying usually involves the legislative process and getting a political actor to make certain political/legislative decisions that would benefit the lobbyist's clients. Bribe's usually involves getting a person in power to make decisions that often don't involve the political process or legislations, like the awarding of a contract by an agency under their control, or withholding an investigation.
Seen this way, lobbying can be and has been characterized as interest groups subsidizing the legislative process by providing competing research and proposals to an understaffed legislature. Whether that's a good or bad of making law is another discussion, but I think it's fair to say that bribery could not be considered that way, and therefore serves no acceptable public purpose other than the enrichment of the briber and bribee.
Corporate lobbying is questionable for other reasons, but it's not bribery. It's on elected officials to not let businesses influence them too much, no matter how many lobbyists they hire.
By the way, is it illegal if the bribes are called campaign contributions or are sent to places the target wants money to go, like a charity that helps their political ambitions?
It's almost never going to be the case that a lobbyist will convince a politician to support a measure they wouldn't otherwise support. Politicians all have agendas and preconceived notions. The most important thing lobbyists do is help politicians filter through he universe of proposals and convince them that particular ones fit within their preconceived worldview and platform.
I think many people have a hard time even conceiving that politicians could support big companies without getting some sort of kickback or campaign contribution for doing so. But a politician's first, second, and third top priorities are jobs. Big companies control the jobs, and for better or worse what's bad for big companies is often, at least in the short term, bad for jobs.
And besides, if a politician passed a bad law thinking he did a great thing for society because corporate marketing was very convincing, does that make a difference?
As to your last point: what is a "bad law?" Does anybody really have any idea what works and what doesn't? Did the repeal of Glass-Steagall cause the 2008 crash? We really have no idea. Did NAFTA leave consumers better off? Who knows? Do minimum wages increase unemployment? Experts disagree. It's effectively impossible to determine what impact laws really have, especially on the economy. Laws and policies aren't judged as "good" or "bad" except in history books. They're judged based on whether they fit into ideological frameworks and prevailing narratives. And voters are part of that. They want politicians who will vote for laws that fit their preferred narrative.
The advertisement makes you want that car, or at least makes you aware that it exists, which influences your behavior in the future, when you are actually able to buy.
The lobbyist never knows if the investment of time and effort is successful until after the vote is cast, and has no recourse whatsoever if is cast the "wrong" way. The car company can't demand a refund for its advertising if not enough extra people want to buy their cars. Watching the ad does not obligate anyone to buy. Lobbying does not obligate anyone to vote in a particular way.
Of course, as the lobbying game is played in multiple iterations, it is certainly a winning strategy to "stay bought". If a lobbyist invests a lot of effort into getting you to change your mind, they will likely continue to do so if you voluntarily act to make that investment pay off every time. There doesn't need to be a legally recognizable quid pro quo. The implicit deal is that consistent cooperation will be rewarded consistently.
no. and yes.
there are donation limits. So what they do, is to create super-PACs and such. which means, lots of little people and companies donate the maximum to the candidate, but all those people and companies all get their money from the same source. So in practice, a single source is brib---donating way more than allowed by law, but legally.
As such, the lobbying will take a different form for different targets, based on their individual preferences and personalities. For some, lobbying will actually take the form of accosting a senator in the lobby of their office building to discuss a possibly overlooked consequence of a bill up for consideration. For others, it may take the form of anonymously mailing some blackmail photos. For others, it may be cash in an unmarked envelope.
My impression of lobbying is that it involves anything and everything likely to produce the desired result within the allocated budget. Some lobbyists are better positioned to influence specific issues than others. If you are not allowed to lobby by offering a bribe directly to the person who must be swayed, it is always possible to work your way down the chain of social connections to someone or several someones that can be bribed to carry your case to that person on your behalf.
If you can't bribe the senator, hire their spouse to change their mind. If you can't hire the spouse, hire their best friend. If you can't hire the spouse's best friend, hire the extramarital romantic interest. If you can't hire that person, hire a photographer.
As long as getting the attention of a government office holder is worth more than what it costs to obtain, there will be lobbyists available to purchase it wholesale and resell it in manageable parcels.
If you think that this must be adversarial, and that The People must get completely impartial ... justice in dealing with all economic entities, then you must expect to match those entities blow for blow. But there are information and resource asymmetries in play that are profound. This ignores that some people simply view activities differently, which will greatly increase the cost.