SPOILER ALERT: the answer is 'lobbying'. That is, the free, democratic, and fully legal, bribery of government legislators and elected officials by profit-driven corporate bodies.
I, for one, was not surprised.
I, for one, was not surprised.
The alternative is a secret vote. Now only passed/unpassed legislation can be bought. This is a lot more expensive and requires a conspiracy, but it's a lot harder to hold the people in this conspiracy directly accountable since they can always plausibly deny how their vote was cast. I've yet to see another better solution for getting rid of the money to vote pipeline.
The solution is simply to ban lobbying.
Dgmr, I agree that it’s a huge problem but banning lobbying will just be used as a tool to hang some politican they can’t oust any other way.
When spending money is equated with speech, and corporations are given the same free speech rights as people, and you allow anonymous shell corporations... You end up with a corrupted government.
Perhaps there are even certain types of votes that should be visible at the individual level, but I can't think of them right now.
If you ban more direct lobbying there will always be indirect routes to reward desired behavior. As long as buyers can see returns they'll keep investing. We don't have to make it easy for them to see. We don't have to let political machines force party line votes.
That’s not really the definition of lobbying though. We should try to avoid hyperboles. Additionally, bribery is not legal and that’s not even remotely the form that the vast majority of lobbying takes today.
Now, everyone tries to hide behind levels of abstraction — “It’s just lobbying!” — but those are just fig leaves and reasonable people should see through them. E.g., “Exxon gave the money to my campaign committee, and I’m not involved with the finance end; my vote in favor of Exxon was just a coincidence.” That’s pure bullshit and everyone knows it.
So yes it’s bribery. Calling it something else is disingenuous.
Let’s say a lobbyist for a nonprofit cancer research group has dinner with a representative and discusses reasons for (lobbies) him to vote for increased cancer research at this dinner. Is this bribery? Because it is lobbying. But under your definition of lobbying and bribing being equivalent terms, they are the same! And to call such an action bribery isn’t really making your case - it’s just nuking the utility of both of the words.
This is a problem with modern political discourse - all rhetoric is flattened. No - lobbying is lobbying. Bribing is bribing.
Your representative has a town hall and afterwards you get a few minutes to speak with him. You argue that the number of stop signs in your neighborhood isn’t enough and causes danger. In other words, you lobby him to pursue increased stop signs in your area. He hears you out, you guys shake hands, and leave.
As you have now engaged in lobbying, have you engaged in bribery? Clearly not. The two words are not synonyms.
Who's footing the bill ?
Lobbying has, for a very long time, been another term for bribery. Even as recently as the COVID crisis. Why do you think Pfizer got all that juicy government money? Go look at open secrets and see who they paid. If you want a real shocker, look at their top donors and then look at their voting record. Look at all the politicians that end up at Pfizer, Exxon, Northrop, Google, etc. Look at all the executives for those companies that, as if by some miracle, end up running MAJOR parts of our government.
You are correct in the literal sense lobbying was supposed to be about the everyman talking to their representative and convincing them to do right by them. However, now, the everyman has no voice. If you don't donate $X millions you won't even the time of day from most congressmen. It's corruption at it's core and an affront to democracy. It's disguised as "lobbying" because Citizens United allowed it to be. That's all.
Frequently, lobbying is used for corruption. The insinuation that nuanced perception can somehow alter this dynamic, is not compelling.
There's tons of nuance here; I'm responding to a person who appears to be insisting that there's absolutely nothing wrong with lobbying when in fact there are lots of problems with the actual practice as observed in the US.
It's fine for normal people to lobby their representative. But if you're a billionaire telling your representative to close the roads near your house because you don't like normal people driving by, and anyway you travel by helicopter, and you donate millions every year to your representative's campaign so they'd better listen to you - then you're using money to increase your influence beyond "one man, one vote" and that's basically bribery.
wait
Didn't you go from lobbying (getting a dinner specifically to discuss and convince):
> Lets say a lobbyist for a nonprofit cancer research group has dinner with a representative and lobbies him to vote for increased cancer research at this dinner. Is this bribery?
to having dinner and talking cancer research en passant:
> having dinner while talking about cancer research
With that being said, these matters are supposed to be debated on a parliament's floor and an elected parliament member should have his stance about cancer research in his program, that's what he sold/promised to people who voted for them.
I agree that conflating these terms leads to less productive conversations.
it very well could be.
I know plenty of people that could be persuaded to do things by the mere chance to meet someone that they adore.
'Dinner' is often just code for "let me introduce you to X business associate", which has definite real-world persuasive power for people that need to make those connections.
It would be unsurprising for an oil-tycoon to try to purchase a plate at a dinner with lots of oil-state-politicians. This isn't for the sake of good company, it's to further business interests.
Ironically enough, I'm pretty sure these companies do a lot of lobbying.
I’ve been involved in lobbying efforts before as an employee of a firm. It’s not bribery. The company pays a lobbying firm to strategize around an issue, put together talking points or a white paper and leverage their network (as registered lobbyists) to argue their point with various politicians. There is no money transfer happening.
The EU has a very healthy lobbying process as well.
Campaign donations are a different matter, but I can donate up to $5000 to any member of Congress as a citizen and likely get time with them. Am I “bribing” when I do that?
I mean lobbyists can break those laws, but you can break any law.
most people would tend to agree that if it required something it was at the very least an exchange, perhaps a bribe.
one could ask why the request for support couldn't be done over the phone; the answer is "because of the dinner." -- well, then, isn't the dinner being exchanged for the support?
what is the value of the dinner? Does the value represent a monetary amount that would throw red flags up regarding the dinner being an exchange of value rather than a living expense? Does this exchange of value represent a bribe?
It's not as cut and dry as "A is lobbying and B is bribing.", that's why most political corruption scandals are generally handled by committees of people that try to go through the events to extract meaning from them.
Do you have an idea to improve on this? Perhaps there could be 100 designated dinners per rep per year and up to four competing voices could be at the table. We could vote for the candidate who has a 100 dinner topics list that we like the best.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdca/pr/former-congressman-dunc...
https://www.salon.com/2022/05/17/fec-block-action-on-alleged...
Now, perhaps the scheme I just outlined is a bit too obvious, but I certainly don't doubt that far more sophisticated money laundering schemes that leverage the recent supreme court decision are happening now and will happen in the future.
Give it a try. Let me know how it goes.
If you don’t have a campaign donation lined up, you’re not getting in the door.
Edit: Without money, I mean.
Sometimes I sincerely wonder if it is due in part to a lack of autonomy from the national parties. I think there is limited wiggle room to oppose the party line, except in cases where a lot of money is brought in, or a particular issue strongly jeopardizes the party’s control over an area.
I've heard this before and I suspect it's true.
My professor in college actually drafted a pro-entrepreneurship law in the office of his representative who then brought it to the floor for a vote.
No money was exchanged.
Corruption doesn’t always seem to lie in the identification of problems (although it could). The interface with the private sector is where I believe the government often fails to meet ethical standards.
The experts in the telecom industry work for the telecom industry, for instance. If I believe a bill they wrote will cause harm to the public, there is no one within the benefitting industry that will argue on my behalf, except for myself.
Lobbying is talking to politicians to attempt to convince them of something. Lobbyists aren't allowed to give money or gifts to a politician beyond some small limit (exact rules vary by state). For example, in California, a lobbyist can pay up to $10 of the politician's meal and the politician has to pay the rest.
A company can both make political donations and hire lobbyists. But when you see that X company spent $2 million on lobbying, that's not money going to a politician or their campaign. You need to look at the political donations.
It has become a channel for corruption, though. The solution, which may be entirely impossible, is to select better representatives. But requires being a better people in the first place.
Yeah, it's bribery.
It seems like the other democratic thing, which is likely more impactful, is that most people don't give a shit about most issues like this. People have much bigger issues in their lives (and on the reps schedule), so there's no real pressure for regulators to changeover this issue vs others. For even more evidence of people not giving a shit, just look at voter turn out.
Edit: why disagree?
Perhaps you misconstrued my perspective. I'm just telling it how it is. There are plenty of issues that we should see action on, yet none is taken. The main reason is that there's only so much bandwidth in the system so things get prioritized. The high priority stuff is high priority because a lot of people give a shit about that thing.
This is not victim blaming. Even if people gave a shit, the system is overburdened and they'd have to deprioritze other stuff. This is simply reality. Not to mention, we'd need proof that all these indifferent people are actually victims.
Many people think the foundations of the U.S. are outdated and ill-informed of modern society. Most of those people are poor students of history. The U.S. founders were not poor students.
Regarding lobbyists and special interests in politics, the founders were not the least bit ignorant. In the end they settled on a clever mechanism to control them. The answer to special interests is special interests.
It might be argued that some special interests have escaped containment. Big oil is too big? But Biden just sent massive funding into solar and batteries and electric vehicles. Big chemical is too big? Trump gutted EPA? What about Big Pharma? Well, any system is going to have pendulums, and none of them will be perfect. But can they self heal? History suggests the current system is pretty good at that even if any given moment seems a bit off-kilter.
I'm not opposed to exploring other options. But to improve requires a recognition of the weanesses and the strengths of alternatives. Don't be too quick to dismiss the strengths of the current alternative.
https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary...
At any rate, I think it's good that people collecting signatures are being paid for their time. If there's something actually bad about the petition though, it'd be good to hear about it.
I'm also still not sure why I should think both sides are terrible, given that you haven't stated any reason to think that the petition is terrible.
Sure, it's legal, but how is it democratic?