What are some arguments for money in politics; lobbying?
Lobbying is literally talking to people in power. It involves money because advertising and marketing aren't free. A special interest group is literally a group of people who want to talk about a particular set of issues.
So to return a question, what are some plans for limiting lobbying and money that don't violate the rights to petition, assembly, and speech? Minus points if the new rules help incumbent powers erect new barriers to talking to elected officials.
It would do the most harm to interests that pool resources from large groups of regular folks, like unions or environmental groups.
It harms oil lobbyists and big ag and tobacco and all those industries in exactly the same way it's going to hurt the Sierra Club. I'd still call that a win for the little guy.
>That would bias the process in favor of rich people who can afford to spend a week hanging out in DC meeting with members of Congress.
The process is already biased in favor of rich people and I don't see a reasonable way to make it not favor rich people - I'm just saying that this would favor rich people less than our current system. I prefer a system where some CEO has to actually go talk to Senators for a week than a system where a few slick-haired individuals run around the hill year round.
It would not, because under your rules an industry executive could draw a salary while talking to government officials because they would be pursuing their own self-interest in doing so. But a Sierra Club employee could not because the sole purpose of the Sierra Club is to represent the interests of other people (their members).
A rule that prohibits a person from getting paid to represent other people would hurt representative organizations (nonprofits) more than rich individuals and for-profit companies.
>A rule that prohibits a person from getting paid to represent other people
That's not the rule. The rule is you can't get paid to lobby. An executive drawing a salary when his job is primarily talking to congress people is obviously lobbying. To put a finer point on it you're making a distinction between (1) a corporate executive who receives compensation from his corporation speaking to a congress person because it is in his personal interest to advance the interests of his corporation and (2) a Sierra Club executive who receives compensation from the Sierra Club speaking to a congress person because it is in his personal interest to advance the interests of the Sierra Club. They're the same thing, if one is affected so is the other.
Meanwhile the entire purpose of advocacy organizations like the Sierra Club is to lobby. So if they can't pay people to lobby, they have no reason to raise money, and no way to spend money if they do raise any. Under a rule that prohibits getting paid to lobby, orgs like the Sierra Club simply cannot exist at all. There's no business model.
Anyway, the law is crystal clear that such a rule would be unconstitutional. People don't give up their rights just because they pool resources or get paid. Paul Krugman and David Brooks still have free speech rights even when they're getting paid to write columns.
Then they do the same thing and go do it on their vacation. To me it seems obvious that the money for lobbying exchange that happens in our society benefits the wealthy more than anyone else so ending it is good. It moves the power dynamic from one where lobbying power is determined by money to one where lobbying power is determined by manpower. Now obviously it doesn't completely shift that dynamic by itself but it seems like a vital reform among others.
>Anyway, the law is crystal clear that such a rule would be unconstitutional. People don't give up their rights just because they pool resources or get paid. Paul Krugman and David Brooks still have free speech rights even when they're getting paid to write columns.
No it's not because it's not limiting your speech, it's limiting your ability to get paid for speaking. Like with the kidney example - our laws against buying/selling a kidney don't make having a kidney illegal - you can walk around all day with a kidney - you just can't sell it. Same thing with my rule - you can speak to congresspeople all day, you just can't get paid for it.
Ultimaist defenses of individual rights, vs balancing rights, ends up with ridiculous conclusions like “money equals speech”.
To fix is to reduce (or eliminate) the cost of campaigning. Mooting the whole problem.
I think messing around with campaign spending has similar issues to getting rid of lobbying. But making campaigns smaller and cheaper (by making local campaigns more important) could do the trick.
(2) It takes skill and savvy to make money. Overweighting their influence will produce a fitter society. (Interesting aside: British university graduates and property owners got double, sometimes triple, votes through 1948 [1].) Counterpoint: this requires high intergenerational income mobility. A lack of mobility from the lower classes up is a problem in the long run, but a lack of mobility from the upper classes down is toxic in the short: you'll have idiots with tuborcharged influence.
As to lobbying, that's unavoidable in a democracy. You will need insiders to explain the system to legislators. Banning lobbying means forcing the legislature to make decisions in the dark.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_voting#United_Kingdom
Also, wealthy people will almost always prefer pro-small taxes politicians, on either party. So they will fund either Republicans or Democrats that think that way (especially with Democrats that have a "public position and a private one").
Allowing money to decide rank in society is what we normally call corruption, because it also bypasses laws, like when rich people get away with crimes, because they have money and influence. That's not how it should work, right? Similarly, I very much doubt that having mostly rich people buying politicians is how a democracy should work, too.
> That's not how it should work, right?
That’s a big question. I don’t think it’s safe to presume it’s answer.
I'm sure if we gave felons a vote that counted as 1/2 a non-felon plenty of them would vote.
I think a system where your vote starts at 3/4 value in state elections and increases to 1 after you've been a resident for 10yr. Weighting the opinion of a newcomer less is pretty standard in pretty much every group decision other than voting.
2.5% of voting age Americans cannot vote, because of felony sentences. In some states (Florida) it can be as high as 10% of the population. Is some states (e.g. Florida, Alabama, Virginia, Mississippi) over 25% of voting age black male population cannot vote.
In most European countries, also felons and prisoners are allowed to vote.
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=one+person+one...
Campaign finance is tricky stuff.