>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.
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.