This is so true. We should just ban lobbying because it is only used by rich corporations and individuals.
Electioneering should be treated the same as advertising and have the same penalties for making false or misleading statements.
The depressing thing about most bribery is how small the amounts of money are. Politicians take bribes in the form of campaign financing because they want to stay in power. It's easy for them to rationalize if they think they're serving the greater good, and many of them would probably prefer to take money from citizens instead.
It seems like one super rich person could fix every level of US politics by implementing a backdoor direct democracy and seeding it with matching donations. If crowdfunding has proven anything, it's that people have more than enough money to spend when they want something.
It's only now that everyone is on the internet that this idea is even possible, and no one has tried it yet.
Your politicians aren't idiots, they rationally respond to the incentives in the system. What's broken is the system.
Certainly it's better to outlaw it rather than to simply allow it to happen. You will never catch 100% of the people breaking the law, but you can create an environment of transparency and accountability to help and you can make it costly enough for those who are caught to make the next person reconsider risking it.
I've actually considered that, because it's effectively the status quo, but then I conclude: Why should wealthy people have special proportional access? There are so many more groups who are so much more at risk: Small business? Orphans? Groups facing systemic discrimination (women, minorities, LGBTQ)? Homeless? Minority party members in solid red/blue districts? People with rare diseases? With unpopular political beliefs? OpenBSD users? Wealthy people already have so much power and so many advantages; they might be the absolute last group that needs special protection.
Democracy does not "devolve" into that, that is what democracy is.
Lobbyism forms a power structure that effectively cuts off and circumvents the will of the people. So by definition, it's actually a form of tyranny.
I think cash contributions for legislation fundamentally subvert our democracy, and my comment was intended to raise that point for discussion. I don't see discussion of the perversion of democracy as unsubstantive.
Lobbying in its positive form is about experts trying to explain things to representatives that don't understand the specifics of the field. When done right a representative should get perspective from different areas and be able to understand the issues/regulations that are being discussed from multiple parties that have their own different incentives.
Your comment that's it's 'treasonous' absent any discussion doesn't really offer any explanation of how congressional representatives are supposed to be informed about any subject they don't already know about.
People that do this work are going to be paid by the companies trying to explain things.
Political contributions to campaigns are a different issue and I think do pose a corrupting influence, this talk does a good job explaining the issue: https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_...
I heard an interview on the Stay Tuned podcast (Preet Bharara's podcast) where he interviewed one of the lawyers that argued the winning side of citizen's united. It was an interesting interview and an over simplified summary was that the influence of campaign contributions which come from concentrated groups is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with, but putting government restrictions on speech in order to do it sets a dangerous precedent (at what point are you rich enough where you're no longer allowed to participate in political speech?).
Anyway - thanks for clarifying.
that’s an interesting perspective on citizen’s united worth mulling over.
but while speech is free from governmental limits, it is not protected from the response of other citizens. it’s still problematic that political contributions can be hidden behind organizations to shield the wealthy from the consequences of their speech.
citizens—nay, people—are equal in the eyes of the constitution (as affirmed in the bill of rights), and moneyed citizens are not entitled to unequal, government-protected veils from such consequences.
this is part of the larger discussion around who gets a public (media) voice and in what proportion. it seems an argument can be made that constitutionally, that proportion should correlate to the population (one person, one vote; not one dollar, one vote). we can defer to representatives to voice our opinions for us, but they should do so with only the aggregate backing of the citizens standing behind them. (then you also have to deal with the tyranny of the majority issues arising therefrom).
Ultimately I think that was what the decision was about - that there need to be better controls and fixes for how campaign finance currently works, but that the citizen's united solution (that lost) was not the safe way to do it.
The US Constitution defines treason thus:
> Treason against the United States, shall consist [...] in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
If you assume the US is a democracy[0], ie that its enemies are the enemies of its citizens, rather than its nobility^Wgovernment, then any politician who passes laws at the request of (or otherwise Aids and Comforts) eg Facebook, Dow Chemical, [insert human-rights-violating corporation here], is de facto guilty of treason.
You could certainly argue that treason means something other than what the constitution says it does, but taken at face value this is rather obvious.
0: If you don't, then that's a different discussion.
The US is a republic/representative democracy, but that aside working with organizations to pass laws isn't zero sum - laws can be good for organizations and the public. If Google is lobbying to prevent the government from passing key escrow laws that weaken encryption that's better for everyone.
These companies are also made up of citizens and a part of the society (not enemies of the government or the people) - working with experts in the field to try and understand things better isn't 'de facto treason'.