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 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.
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.
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...
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.
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...)
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.
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.
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.