Comment by supernova87a | Hacker News Reader

Comment by supernova87a | Hacker News Reader

I know that he (and others in positions like CEO in such industries) cannot say it, but I would be glad to hear him say:

"Representatives, Amazon is a company focused on innovation, efficiency, and getting the best and most out of people, and giving the best and most to people, wherever it can.

Tech allows us to tap into economies of scale, create new products and give consumers choices never seen before, squeeze out waste in ways that were not possible up to now, and create net benefit for people in this country. Each one of you can probably personally think of how Amazon technology has improved the lives of yourselves and people you know.

We seek to do this as far as the law allows us to do, and other companies do that as well. We operate within the rules placed on us by the legislatures of this country and its states.

As you know, sometimes even under fair laws, some people will lose out compared to others. Innovation comes with risk and change -- that's an unavoidable consequence of progress. And technology has been doing this for hundreds of years. But that's what laws are meant to set the boundaries of, based on people like you determining how best to create those rules.

If this body is concerned with what we are doing within the laws, it should change those laws based on the best interests of this country and its people. And Amazon will follow those laws.

We want that clarity, and want to follow our responsibilities under the law. It's your responsibility to set out those laws. Amazon welcomes performing our responsibilities to American consumers, and we invite you to do the same to the people you are responsible to."

"If this body is concerned with what we are doing with the laws, it should change those laws based on the best interests of this country and its people;"

"however, this body should also note that Amazon will seek to exert control over the legislative process to ensure that Amazon's best interests are represented to the maximum extent that our influence and lobbying budget will allow,^1 even if those interests conflict with the best interests of this country and its people."

1. We spent $16,790,000 in 2019. https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary... I own the Washington Post. I am considered by Forbes, among others, to be the world's wealthiest billionaire. I am also a registered voter in this country.

That's a reasonably fair criticism, but Congress has the power to outlaw such lobbying.

It's principal-agent problems all the way down.

Congress has some power to outlaw corruption (or the perception thereof), but not lobbying per se. Restrictions on donations to political campaigns have been upheld in the past, but those tend to be direct money donations to candidates.

Handing over money directly to a candidate is one thing, but the Courts have been a little more hesitant to uphold restrictions on lobbying or political speech -- and the spending of money to do it -- if it's being spent by or given to a third party not directly connected to the Government. The hesitancy is most recently exemplified in the Citizen's United case that is of significant controversy.

Sometimes I think that Congress had better think ahead to save its own skin, propose amendments to the Constitution about limits on corporations, before they lose all power to them and can no longer escape their grasp.

Petitioning the Government (aka lobbying) is a civil right in the US, guaranteed by the first amendment to the constitution.

The constitution applies to citizens, not organizations.

Anti-trust laws exist to protect citizens from organizations that try to break these rules. Amazon is teeing up.

The Supreme Court has determined that companies are granted some rights as citizens have. The first is one of the rights that is protected according to their rulings.

And it is widely believed to be a failure of the justice system. Companies are not expected to behave the same as individuals. They have different motivations and calculate risks differently. If it looks like a dog and barks like a dog, it isn’t a duck.

You can't say that the first amendment doesn't apply to companies when the law has found that it does. You can say that you believe it shouldn't, but legally today it does.

The issue is that the first amendment isn't absolute, there are in fact limits, those limits however have been effectively rescinded when it comes to corporations but are still in place for individuals. The disparity of power this affords in our democracy is destined to erode what is left of it.

> The constitution applies to citizens

No, the Constitution applies to government.

But it generally protects people, (not just citizens) which in law included juridical as well as natural persons long before the Constitution.

What happens when corporations have more practical daily influence over people's lives than the government? This is a problem. Is it our Achilles heel?

I see that as a good thing. Macy's can't force me to do anything. The federal government can. I'd prefer Macy's to have more influence in my day to day life than the business end of a gun.

“Corporations” and “business end of a gun” are not mutually exclusive mechanisms of power.

> What happens when corporations have more practical daily influence over people's lives than the government?

Impossible, because while corporations are a vehicle through which private individuals act, they are a creation and extension of government power. While the power exerted through corporations is not proximately controlled by people who are particularly accountable to the public for their actions, it is nevertheless government power, and thus the power exerted by corporations can never be greater than that exerted by government, because the former is a subset of the latter.

You don't think that a corporation, even now, can exceed the ability of its employees to disagree with what it's doing?

Like lobby for legislation that protects (or makes paramount) the corporate interests, even though the people within the corporation might completely object to what is being lobbied for?

I think we underestimate how much people are willing to do what their employer requires to continue to be employed, and end up doing things that are totally legal, but not desireable in the long run.

> You don't think that a corporation, even now, can exceed the ability of its employees to disagree with what it's doing?

I'm not sure why you seem to have interpreted the word “government” in what I said to mean “employees of the corporation”?

I assure you that when I said “government”, I meant “government”.

Attorney here!*

The relevant part of the First Amendment states (emphasis mine):

"...OR the right of the people peaceably to assemble, AND to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This is preceded by a semicolon, making this clause a compound clause. The right to petition the Government is conferred both on individuals and on assemblies (organizations), and has been since the nation was founded. And this principle has been taken as gospel in law as interpreted by our Courts since the nation's founding.

(*IAAL but this is not legal advice. Seek licensed counsel in your jurisdiction if you need legal advice.)

But the type of organization that is a corporation didn't exist when the constitution was written. Much like nuclear arms (and chemical, and biological) didn't exist when the constitution was written so we don't consider them covered by the second amendment.

Joint stock corporations predate the US constitution.

We don't consider nuclear warheads to be covered under the second amendment because they are munitions, not arms. What you're saying is a little ridiculous - do you expect that something written on the Internet is not covered by the first amendment, simply because it didn't exist at the time the amendment was written? Of course not. Technological progress is easily covered by the Constitution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company

The English East India Company was set up along lines pretty similar to today's corporations, and that happened almost 200 years before the constitution was written (1600, to be precise). By 1720 you definitely have bubbles involving corporate stocks (see South Sea Bubble).

By the time you get to the late 18th century (i.e. about when the Constitution was written) you have publications with titles like "A Treatise on the Law of Corporations"; just keep reading the Wikipedia entry above. That was published 7 years after the US Constitution was ratified, but of course the laws and corporations it was talking abot had been around for _quite_ a while at that point.

It certainly did. Among others, the Virginia Company, the Plymouth Company, the British East India Company all featured tradeable shares, perpetual lifetime, limited liability and legal personhood.

What makes the modern economy so different is the democraticization of incorporation. Prior to the 19th century it took a specific legislative act to incorporate.

Maybe that's something we need to bring back -- limits on how many and how large corporations can be? Before they take over running all of society?

Right now you can create infinite corporations, with little to no traceability as to who's really responsible. Maybe there should be some limits?

British East India company had its own army and literally did run a big part of society. Amazon doesn’t have an army at least. Maybe we are trending in the right direction.

> Petitioning the Government (aka lobbying) is a civil right in the US, guaranteed by the first amendment to the constitution.

And some people are obviously more equal then others when exercising that right.

What does it matter that Amazon in particular is the one buying out these politicians? Someone would do it. They're a big enough company that the left hand probably doesn't know what the right hand is doing anyway.

And the most evil company in the world telling you to regulate it ought to give you some pause that maybe you really should think about doing that, don't you think?

How do you figure that Amazon is the most evil company in the world? Like, more than companies whose main products literally kill the users (Altria/Phillip Morris)? The companies that develop ICBMs? Or energy companies that create false narratives to confuse the conversation around climate change? Which frankly has a non-zero chance of being the cause of a new dark age.

Am I misunderstanding what you’re saying?

I'm just using that word as hyperbole. If the person above thinks that Amazon is so bad for lobbying congresspeople, wouldn't Amazon itself saying it needs to be regulated deserve some serious consideration?

Gotcha, mea culpa. Sometimes it seems like the internet really does think that unironically.

Yeah, I think it deserves some thought.

I would argue that ICBMs are a peaceful weapon. Look up nuclear deterrence.

It's almost as if Congress should change some laws about campaign spending and individuals owning loss making "news" organisations. But they don't...

Isn't it hypocritical to make a comment like this while also lobbying the government for laws that favor your business? "I'm just playing by the rules" shouldn't be a valid defense when you are actively taking a role in deciding those rules.

but maybe problem here is in that corrupted thing called lobbying is allowed in the very first place.. I don't see how legal buying politicians this way is different from illegal corruption.

I agree, but lobbying is a free speech issue and good luck getting Americans to agree on any amendment let alone one that reduces free speech.

Yeah, as an immigrant in the US, I still can't wrap my head around it. I originate from a country with rampant corruption amongst beauracrats and politician. The most common, that's always in the news, is one where the wealthy pay off political leaders to influence policies. But in the US, it's just legal!

I’m also from a country where corruption is common. There, it means giving some official money to exercise discretion in your favor. “Lobbying,“ for the most part, means giving some staffer a PowerPoint presentation.

> I still can't wrap my head around it

Pick something you’re knowledgeable about. Uniquely knowledgeable. Now imagine the Congress is writing legislation on it. Would you think your views might be helpful?

Let’s say you and a few other people are in the same position. Travelling to D.C. isn’t free, so you decide to--as a group--reimburse the expenses of the person who travels. Would this be unfair?

Scale that up to a full-time job, as an explainer of specific things to lawmakers, and lobbying makes sense. Barring lobbying would mean barring people knowledgeable about specific topics from organising to inform lawmakers. That applies to large companies as much as to the Sierra Club.

The trouble is in campaign contributions, post-service jobs and e.g. fancy dinners. These are closer to, or overtly, bribery. Democracy can’t exist without organisation and education of lawmakers, and that means it requires lobbying. Democracy also cannot survive in the presence of chronic bribery. These aims aren't mutually exclusive.

This is very true.

Lobbying, for its many faults, helps lawmakers (who are understaffed and generally underresourced) filter and figure out which opinions are worth listening to. Even the most well-intentioned / good ideas have trouble being advocated by one smart person in this system. You need an organization to attach to that gives you credibility.

Not saying that this is the right way -- and certainly often the less privileged opinions get short shrift in this system. A good government/political structure would give lawmakers effective ways to not have to have to rely on lobbyists.

But it is the system that has arisen in the absence of that.

It's not legal to pay off political leaders in the U.S. You can spend nearly as much as you want on lobbyists and campaigning, but the money has to stay with the lobbyists and the campaign organizations. And direct contributions by individuals are capped at relatively low levels.

In fact, the law is so strict in the U.S. that you can't even bribe foreign leaders either (see the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act).

At least here it has to be reported, registered, and subject to scrutiny.

IMO the problem is that the government meddles with the market to begin with. I know I'm in the minority, but I believe a clean separation of government and market would remove the incentive for regulatory capture without damaging free speech rights.

> I know I'm in the minority, but I believe a clean separation of government and market would remove the incentive for regulatory capture without damaging free speech rights.

That's myopic though. It's true your "clean separation" would "solve" the problem of regulatory capture, but it would simultaneously re-introduce the problems that regulation has successfully solved [1]. Society is a dynamic system of tradeoffs; solutions to societal problems that are tidy, good, and stable are ever-tempting chimeras.

[1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/cuyahoga-river-caught...

No. Amazon has a view of what it thinks is best for the US. That view is informed by its own self interest. Others have a view of what they think is best for the US. Their views are informed by their own self interest. Ultimately when a view does not align with the law of the land, the holder of the view can a) comply, b) comply and seek to redress their issues, or c) fail to comply. Amazon, in the speech above, says it will comply. There is nothing hypocritical in wanting a voice in a policy decision.

>Amazon has a view of what it thinks is best for the US. That view is informed by its own self interest.

This doesn't follow. The argument above is that Amazon is a amoral corporation that seeks to make money to the extent that the law allows. Amazon is not considering what is in the best interest of the country. It is acting in the best interest of Amazon.

Those are not necessarily at odds. Amazon does not want to collapse the US. If it did, it would collapse too.

Don’t forget how he treats employees. If just 1/3 of what was written in The Everything Store is true, it paints a damning portrait of its ceo.

If the lobbying they do is unfair, then they should change the rules around lobbying

That sounds like it's going to get really messy really fast, especially with the 1st amendment in play. (Not that we shouldn't try, mind, just that it's not an easy thing to fix)

It has nothing to do with the first amendment. Money isn't actually speech -- bribery is illegal, after all.

The legislators who have the ability to change the rules around lobbying are at the receiving end of millions of lobbying dollars, and they don't want the money firehose to stop.

> If the lobbying they do is unfair, then they should change the rules around lobbying

Who is "they"? Plenty of people do want to reduce the amount of money in US politics, but they come up against the same money that's behind the lobbying in the first place.

Congress, via their voters

This is a bit like the "stop hitting yourself" game that kids play. If you ask voters whether they think there is too much money in politics, they overwhelming say there is[1].

1. https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2091... see q32

Legislators tried to reform campaign finance nearly two decades ago.

SCOTUS stopped them in their tracks.

A constitutional amendment is absurdly politically expensive.

I dont think so - that's like saying that if you don't donate money to the US treasury, you can't criticize taxes for being too low.

I'd say no because lobbying the government for laws that favor you is within the laws. When one of the rules says you get to bribe those who make up the rules of course you'll get some messed up rules. But it isn't hypocritical.

He's basically saying there's profit-maximizing loopholes all over the place, and it's not his fault they exist...which is true.

The real issue is that politicians are shooting themselves in the foot career-wise if they try to close these loopholes. We need to reduce the incentives politicians get from action or inaction depending on chummy relationships with big business. A good start would be more rules around lobbyist relationships, and figuring out how to close the revolving door where politicians are given lucrative jobs/consultancies/speaking-fees/etc by these businesses after leaving office.

I have the idea that if the money = free speech route is closed off to being solved by SCOTUS, the next best thing we could advocate for happening is to have limits on the number and size of corporations. There's nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of that. And Congress should do it before corporations are so powerful they can no longer escape their grasp.

> If this body is concerned with what we are doing within the laws, it should change those laws based on the best interests of this country and its people. And Amazon will follow those laws.

Left unsaid here would be: "We will quietly but effectively work behind the scenes to prevent them from ever becoming laws."

> We seek to do this as far as the law allows us to do, and other companies do that as well. We operate within the rules placed on us by the legislatures of this country and its states.

Sure, but this is an antitrust hearing and trusts aren't really legal in the US.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com