[1] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23599780-technets-pr... [2] https://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=S01320&ter...
But. If we can act coherently on one way, we can do so in another, and I take great hope in that fact.
Money is power, at least until people are fairly represented...
So I'm not so optimistic.
https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-bag-nearly...
It's now clear we have a critical vulnerability in our political operating system. IMHO, the simplest solution is single-term limits. Obviously, there are upside and downside trade-offs to such a policy. However, I think the upsides might be worth the downsides, especially since the system is so clearly being gamed by well-funded adversaries to the public interest.
Based on the sky-rocketing increases in net worth after becoming a long-term career politician, the incentives are simply overwhelming. It's now attracting people with poor, or at least conflicted, motivations to the career. Another under-appreciated upside would be limiting the influence of entrenched, 'permanent' political parties, as seen in the now-eternal two-party duopoly we have in the U.S. No matter which 'side' you may be on (if any), we'd all be better served by a system more able to evolve and adapt to meet changing conditions.
And they have to consider every proposal.
You know what the most common decision is? "ITL," or "inexpedient to legislate." In most cases, no, there really shouldn't be a law.
Is it the best system out there? Probably not, but it certainly solves some of the commonest problems.
[0] https://www.vnews.com/Upper-Valley-state-legislators-push-fo...
Do you think the government is less complicated than the average software project? Does the idea of firing all mid-level and senior developers strike you as good practice?
Systemic corruption is very much a thing, but I think it's mostly concentrated in the legislative branch of government, than the executive or the judicial. I personally think it's easier to add to a system than remove from it, and maybe we ought to rethink the bicameral system for one that is more capable of representing the interests of the general population.
Now, the real problem is that any changes to the system need to come from the system itself :) so there's obvious interests at play that might not be touched.
What makes you think that every politician being exposed to the public spotlight for a very limited period is even a solution, rather than an accelerant, to the problem of political corruption?
The people in power are the ones to vote on enabling that, but they will never vote against their own power. We already have the power to do this collectively and that is to vote out the incumbent every election as a default.
Now, this seems to be a failure where there were not protests raised to this amendments or the lawmakers ignored such things. Either way, the point of lobbyists is to allow industry experts to provide input. If there is nothing wrong with their suggestions, I don't see a problem with verbatim including of their wording.
(I disagree with how the NY law was changed, but there are reasons lobbying exists).
Traditionally in an debate, it is your responsibility to convince the other side of your view. You can't just get the other side to make your argument for you.
??? There is no "point" to lobbyists, its literally a guy paying to play. Take any industry expert from any industry and unless they themselves are a lobbyist I can near guarantee they would be happier if lobbying was illegal with very harsh punishment
I suppose you mean professional lobbying, with the purpose of influencing laws to make money?
Because when a environmental group tries to block some dirty mining project for example, than this is also lobbying. It is just people using influence. You cannot really make that illegal.
You can force the parties involved for transparency and punish bribery, but you cannot make it illegal for people to talk to politicians.
Even when it is done "professional". The problem in reality is, that when you look closely, in effect lots of lobbying is indeed bribery. (most of the indirect kind, like informal promising lucrative jobs after their terms are over, or giving overpaid talks). And that is and remains illegal.
“Lobbying, which usually involves direct, face-to-face contact in cooperation with support staff that may not meet directly face-to-face, is done by many types of people, associations and organized groups, including individuals on a personal level in their capacity as private citizens, it is also practiced by corporations in the private sector serving their own interests, by non-profits and non-governmental organizations in the voluntary sector, by fellow legislators or government officials influencing each other through legislative affairs (legislative assistance) in the public sector, and by advocacy groups (interest groups).”
> is the act of lawfully
Many laws are a product of the time they were written and in turn, a product of the people who have written them. Why is lobbying legal in the USA? Why is it coded in law? These are genuine questions that people can and should ask.
The idea that lobbyists are ‘the man’ corruptly influencing bent politicians is tiresome and to paint it as the truth is not productive. If you want to stop lobbying vote for politicians that want to stop it or run for office yourself. However once you are in office you might note why it exists, as did many before you.
I mean to me the big issue is that these are laws that corrupt democracy (in the sense that they benefit the few powerful over the many powerless). And your solution of "just vote them out" is not really feasible because both democrats and Republicans (the only two realistic options you have given the electoral system) are pro lobbying!
But is the general population in favour of lobbying? I don't know but I don't think so.
I personally advocate for a new way of doing politics altogether. As I don't think the current system really works well to properly channel the will of the majority of the people in responsible ways.
And lobbying is much, much stricter in pretty much every other country in the world. So the US is an outlier here.
You appear to have strong ideas about politics. Arguing on forums gets them nowhere, you can either preach to the choir or try to convince people who will never change their mind. If you want to change things, get involved in the political process yourself.
The fact is without the non-corrupt side of lobbying, the lawyers whom make up most of the legislature wouldn't have the first clue how their legislation interacts with complex industry specific real world systems.
Lobbying for money is a form of legalized corruption, almost identical in form and function to the illegal one, except designed to protect those who already have a lot of money and power from any legal consequences.
If I donate money to the EFF or Louis Rossmann for a cause I care about, that should not block them from lobbying on my behalf.
Everyone complains about professional lobbying that they don’t like. That’s hardly shocking.
I think you picked the laziest understanding of both the issue and my answer, and made my point in the process.
I'm not talking about you paying someone to represent your ideas to lawmakers, regulators, judges, etc. but about paying those people to directly enact your interests. They're both big problems in their own way. Straight up buying laws or legal decisions happens even if the incentives move from the interest groups to the decision factors through so many lobbying laundromats that they look completely clean and disconnected.
The other problem is not better. As you confirm, real representation in democracy is not with your vote but your donation power. Even when your chosen lobbyist isn't buying anything directly, just having a voice and representation takes money rather than a vote. The EFF or Louis Rossmann have to struggle so much to be heard because other people pay more to be louder. If you have problems being heard for money, imagine the people hoping to be heard for free.
The large majority of people can only spend one vote every few years to choose a representation that a small minority will spend a lot of money to hijack: either drown out everyone else's voice, or directly purchase exactly what they want. If you can't see why "everyone complains" maybe you're too disconnected from the problem to even understand it.
Congress can simply bring people to testify in the open instead of cowering in the shadows like they do now.
Which is also usually driven by financial interests under cover of virtue. It is most obvious in Europe where many people now have become multi millionaires, largely of government imposed enrichment schemes.
Can you cite concrete examples?
This is probably how corruption takes over a society. Something I thought I’d only ever read in history books, but now I have the privilege of living through it. Oh joy.
I wish we had a better example to show to the world.
Like SuperPAC's and all that bullshit
Edit: I see your point wrt alternative bribery schemes existing, and isn't the solution perhaps for those schemes to also be shut down, instead of allowing it because some good might come of it?
Hmmmm, it's difficult not to assume you are yourself a lobbyist or politician if you take this position, given that the coffers of those with ill intent are vastly more lined than the alternative...
We need something better than this fake democracy we inherited.
Well, it probably is difficult if one is not very good at thinking.
Regarding your edit, sure, but that's not the content of the post I replied to. That was about banning lobbying and I'm making the point that consequences of that could be counterproductive and make for an even less level playing field.
Voting lawmaker who don’t know the subject don’t help
If you run a small solar company, it is in your best interest to support SEIA, the member association (lobbyist) for the solar industry.
You might think the system is dumb, and it is, but if you don’t understand why it exists, you can’t design a replacement.
Lawmakers and their teams legislate on topics that they are far from experts in, so they regularly need to consult with experts. Those experts, no matter how you select them, will harbor biases.
How do you get the relevant expertise to the lawmakers? I’ve talked to a chief of staff for a senator and at that level it is a lot of responding to what is next on the agenda, and less deciding.
Same reason you talk to your representative on the regular so that your position is known. It's why you hired someone to represent you, after all. As before, the person you hired is not a mind reader. You have to talk to him. Like any employer, if you don't keep in regular touch with your employees they are not going to do the job you expect of them.
Whatever they are they should be representing the people first. If that involves learning more about whatever they're in charge of, then they should do that, since that's what we pay them to do. Plato said our kings should be philosophers, but what we have are sophists.
Right?
Poor analogy.
I'm all for right to repair laws, but I would hate to see a law concerning even slightly technical topics written only by elected parties. It would be a disaster.
The legislators approved the editing of the laws and voted for the text as written. They are responsible and should be held accountable.
The legislators' job is to represent their constituents, not those who pay enough to tell them what to legislate.
Specific to the US.
They're rarely if ever written by elected officials directly. Rather legislative aids do the bulk of the authoring and reading of bills along with input from lobbyists.
Laws may be problematic due to the unfamiliarity the authors/sponsors have with technical details and nuances but overwhelmingly the difficulty lies in creating legislature that cannot be interpreted in any other way than it's intention when challenged by an army of highly paid and highly skilled attorneys.
No, an elected official cannot be punished for voting.
/s
Oh no, not the gdpr again?