Hacker News Reader

Comment by cies | Hacker News Reader

How again is "lobbying" different from "legalized corruption"? [serious]

Lobbying isn't an inherently dirty thing. It started (and largely remains) a way for people with knowledge of a field outside the politician's bailiwick to inform them of pros/cons to an issue they may not be aware of.

Corruption has indeed seeped into the process, but I would prefer experts in a field (on both sides) to inform politicians than have them be clueless on the issues in question. The EFF, the ACLU? Lobbyists. Good lobbyists, but lobbyists nonetheless.

Lobbying is like any other organization of man: government, organized religion, corporations, unions, non-profits, etc. Once they get to a certain size, once people are supported solely by the organization and thus put their need for it to exist and grow and flourish above even its stated purpose, it can (and seemingly inevitably does) become corrupt.

Lobbying on Net Neutrality, done by a bunch of technology workers passionate about the issue is fine. Lobbying on Net Neutrality by professional lobbyists (selling their rolodex) and corporate lawyers, who donate, wine/dine, hire nephews, host fundraisers, etc is not.

It's pretty clear which version people are talking about when they complain about lobbying. (Hint: less to do with reddit, more to do with K Street) And professional lobbying is pretty much inherently corrupt.

I largely agree, though I think professional lobbyists ideally would have a place as a representative of a large group. What needs to be done is campaign finance reform. If we get money out of running for office, most of these soft-corruption problems will disappear.

The problem is the process is innately corrupt though. If we wanted an uncorrupted process, we would set aside tax money to pay researchers in the field grants solely to study and advise, with laws preventing them from taking subsidies and the like elsewhere. Perhaps with a process to allocate existing researchers to new issues. Corporation feels that we need more spying on our citizens because it makes them profitable? They could raise that issue, an existent researcher could look into it; but the continued funding of that researcher is not tied to their findings or results in any way.

As it is, the side with the most money gets the most lobbying, and that's not even considering the negative effect of campaign donations and the like.

> we would set aside tax money to pay researchers in the field grants solely to study and advise

Just because someone works for the government does not make them free from political influence. [0]

I'm not happy with our current system, but I'm also dismayed by all the people who think it has a simple solution.

[0] http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-08/florid...

Lobbying is an inheritly tricky problem because you want to allow everyone to exercise free speech, if suddenly only government funded researchers are allowed to make comments on policy you no longer can participate in democratic governance.

The problem is governents have way too much control over nearly every facet of the economy and it is much cheaper and easier to buy a senator and get some new regulations passed than it is to build a successful product or service that everyday people want to opt in for.

When you mandate decisions, you tend to get bad and corrupt decisions that benefit the few over the many.

It's not the issue of the speech in lobbying, it's that lobbying in politics means gifts of money.

I can "lobby" a police officer not to give me a ticket, but when I offer him a $20 all of a sudden he'll call it a bribe and slap the cuffs on me. (Despite my explanations that money is speech, and thus protected...)

The congressional research service does this. Unfortunatley over the last two decades it's been crippled by partisian meddling. - http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/januaryfebruary_20...

> The EFF, the ACLU? Lobbyists. Good lobbyists, but lobbyists nonetheless.

Necessary to counter bad lobbyist. :)

Lobbying: you have more money == you have more influence. Sounds very undemocratic to me.

> I would prefer experts in a field (on both sides) to inform politicians than have them be clueless on the issues in question.

But to have them paid for? If civilians press on their representatives, in their own "free" time, this is the only "lobbying" that I consider "honest".

Lobbies kill democracies. You think, for instance, the US would be in so heavily invested in going to war without military corps spending on lobbying?

I think lobbies are bad. In my country (NL) a lobbyist can walk closer to politicians (like a journalist) then a civilian is allowed to. This is too much.

The only good lobbyist is one that doesn't profit from his lobbying.

This is the real issue here -- by making it financially beneficial to peddle rhetoric that reduces the quality of life for hundreds of millions of people, we are selling out.

We're morally bankrupt in every sense.

Only fools argue that "lobbying should be outlawed because it's bribery" because they lack the foresight to realize that such levers are necessary for a healthy political process, but it is more foolish to delude yourself into thinking that it's beneficial to peddle garbage legislative proposals.

Trust, but verify. We're trusting lobbyists but not verifying whether that trust is warranted.

"No boss, trust me on this. Sometimes - for the process to work - I have to let these guys pay me subvert the process."

It's unacceptable that there are any levers on our politicians other than our votes - they're our employees after all.

For what it's worth, if you're going to lobby I'd rather you lobby all of "us" (commercials, etc) to sway the popular vote than being able to concentrate on only our elected representatives.

Right now, lobbying IS a dirty thing. How can we clean it up?

It is not. This is why US is not ranked high on any corruption list, while maintaining the highest level if private financial influence not only in the lawmaking but also in national security. These are very dangerous, and as the Princeton study points out it threatens democracy in the long run very much.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPag...

You could even argue that lobbying is democracy's way of having "corruption" built-in.

When there's a dictatorship, no one is surprised when the dictator is bribed. In a democracy, you can't just walk into the president's office and drop a bag of money on his desk, but you can lobby the shit out of him.

Either way, you get to bribe someone who's in a position to hand out favours. That's just how political power works.

Some country the size of Massachussetts can rank better but let's ignore Italy and Greece.

You say this as if lobbying/corruption doesn't happen from the top (federal) to the bottom (local/city) in the United States... We don't need to compare the federal government's issues with "security" spending to European countries to see how there are questionable spending practices at the state level, e.g. public works contracts.

Well that is going to be a hard argument to sell because so many laws are local and you can't really successfully condemn every small jurisdictions decisions without condemning the people that voted for them.

Saying that it's unfeasible to criticize the elected without criticizing the electorate is silly. It's not that the laws are wrong in spirit, it's that they are crafted or operated around so as to benefit the people that put them in place (or their cronies). I think that making the argument that the elected are separate in many ways -- socially, ethically, and legally -- from the electorate is a very easy one to make. It's also a lesson repeated throughout history: see Rome (and the transition from Republic to Empire), Britain (and their 19th century colonial exploits), and others.

You can criticize the personal traits of the elected but when their policies are overwhelmingly supported it is hard to condemn that without involving the people who voted for it. It sucks to have the majority against your beliefs but pretending doesn't address the real problem.

Doubling down on the good old "appeal to the majority," I see... guess we won't be getting anywhere in this thread. The real problem is the one that I am addressing: it starts with the offices themselves and continues as the revolving door continues to revolve. The masses have less and less of a chance to get their desires implemented if lobbying occurs.

"Appeal to the majority" is the basis of democracy and failed minority positions have no choice but to oppose it.

Yet again, you've missed the point. Lobbying and its disproportional impacts are the antitheses of majoritarian rule. They are examples of failed (or more accurately, untested) minority opinions crafted into law and policy without passing under public scrutiny. Your argument boils down to "things are currently the way they are because they are right," which belies the complexities of the situations at hand. That is the appeal to the majority that I am pointing out. It's ironic that you bring it up in the context of lobbying for the reason I've stated above.

Note: I don't think that all lobbying is unethical or contrary to public opinion. I do think that a good majority of it is untested and inorganic. It's monied interests preserving monied interests.

You are attempting to handwave away the fact that virtually all policies have majority support. You can argue they were tricked, you can argue they are wrong, but you cannot argue that long standing policies are not supported by the majority. That may not jive with your world view but too bad, it is on the minority to convince the majority.

To say that the positions lobbyists are lobbying for "virtually all have majority support" is a much bolder claim than the one that I making, which is merely that they are untested opinions that run counter to the spirit of democracy. Lobbyists are in the business of keeping them untested. Why try to engender grassroots support or genuinely benefit constituents when you can spend the money more effectively (i.e., a better ROI) on a handful of representatives? For example, can you say with a straight face that Gramm-Leach-Bliley was genuinely supported and understood by a majority of the population?

If achieving policy based on majority opinions was actually the end game of lobbyists, why would they need to exist in the first place? Majority opinions would elect majority abiding politicians who would enact majority policies. Where's the step that necessitates lobbyists?

[1] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Gramm-Leach-Blile...

I am just pointing out the status quo.

The definition of lobbyist seems to have become people persuading congress in favor of an opinion I don't share. Not to be confused with "activists", who are people persuading congress for an opinion I agree with.

The biggest difference is lobbyists tend to let their money do their talking for them. They also almost always work for large companies with the means to pay. Activists tend to be larger groups of individuals with little money. Lobbyists win more than the activists do.

Lobbying itself is just a form of advocacy. They actually add value sometimes, as they know everyone... If you have s problem, they can get you to the right people in government.

It has become a bigger corruption issue as attaining office has become more expensive, lobbyists are a money funnel.

There's nothing special about lobbying that needs to tie it to corruption. Plenty of countries without legalized lobbying are even more corrupt.

Politics is power, money is power, the two will invariably be linked. It's human nature. Very, very few people are "uncorruptable". Usually, it's just a matter of "how much".

The way to fight this isn't by trying to enforce more unenforceable laws or to make new rules/regulations. It's much simpler than that - voter education.

The problem lies squarely with the voters. Time and time again we elect these people to represent us. They didn't usurp power through a military coup. And our only legal recourse of punishing this behavior is to simply not elect them.

Making lobbying illegal will not make the problem go away - it just won't be in the open.

If all candidates will be happy to take bribes once in office - which is pretty much guaranteed - how do you think voting could possibly prevent bribery at all?

Voting is the only way to end a politician's career. "Fool me once", yes, but you're not holding office again. Not only that, but people will know why you didn't get elected, which drastically reduces your chances of finding good, honest employment again.

If voters actually voted, you'd see a lot less corruption - politicians want to stay politicians, after all.

If voters actually voted, you'd see a lot less corruption...

Do you think that the small portion of people who vote today care about corruption less than all those who don't vote? Or maybe they're just not as well informed as those who don't vote? Maybe it's something else?

They've already been pre-bribed with "campaign-contributions" at the time of getting into office. Then they'll take further bribes behind the scenes.

How about applying "Fool me once" to politicians in general?

Let's say you vote for the first time in your life, and whoever you voted for breaks all his campaign promises and calmly shafts the general populace to his own benefit.

Now you won't be fooled by politicians again?

> How again is "lobbying" different from "legalized corruption"? [serious]

Lobbying in, say, the UK isn't legalized corruption.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/world/europe/with-campaign...

> LONDON — There is no political advertising on television or radio in Britain. Fund-raising and spending are strictly limited. Tight elections can turn on a relative handful of votes in a small number of competitive parliamentary constituencies.

If you don't need to buy broadcast ads for 6 figures during campaign season, there is alot less power in the hands of a lobbyist.

In the UK there are 'Party political broadcasts'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_political_broadcast

Yes, but they are not being charged for the time. It is the fact that US politics allows essentially unlimited spending on broadcast advertising to consumers that creates the corrupting influence of lobbyists on the scale we are seeing.

1 on 1 conversations with industry, media, union reps, etc. is part of doing business in a democracy. Mass broadcasts to sway public opinion isn't required.

> In the United Kingdom the Communications Act 2003 prohibits political advertising on television or radio; parties are instead allocated broadcast slots (usually around five minutes long) free of charge on broadcast channels using a formula set by Parliament

IMO the article should've said 'There is no /paid-for/ political advertising on television or radio in Britain'.

Fair enough, I figured the context of the 6 figure comment I made was enough context about my meaning with that quote.

its not different. however, if you legalize "corruption" then it isn't exactly corruption anymore. a lobbyist is just a professional advocate at the end of the day. its not intrinsically bad.

a much more serious concern is the issue of nearly limitless campaign spending through PACs. I feel like this is the real face of corruption in the American system right now, to a far greater extent that the existence of professional lobbyists.

I would like to suggest to anyone actually providing non-corrupt lobbying services to rename their line of work.

Even if legal and ethical definitions of "lobbying" exists, they exist only in the minds of knowledgeable minorities and not in the broad public.

This btw. would as well help to highlight the benefits of serious, legal and non-corrupt services formerly known as "lobbying" ;)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com