There is a lot of misinformation about lobbying. My wife used to be a lobbyist, so let me dispel some myths:
1) Lobbyists costs a lot of money. The amount Facebook spent on WhatsApp is equivalent to fifty times the annual lobbying revenues of the top 10 DC lobbying firms combined.
2) Lobbying money goes to politicians pockets. American politicians are some of the most thoroughly scrutinized on the planet. Lobbying money doesn't go under the table to some politician. It usually doesn't even go to campaign contributions. The major source of campaign contributions is rich peolple making personal donations, not lobbyists. Lobbying money goes towards advocacy. For example, a lobbyist might commission a survey to show a politician that a particular position, advantageous to a client, is politically popular. They may also propose draft legislation, connect politicians with experts, etc. What Google is doing is a good example of the bread and butter of lobbying: simply helping politicians understand the prevailing point of view of an industry.
3) Lobbying is the same as corruption. The vast majority of lobbying is about helping politicians find votes. Its about showing how what's good for an industry is good for constituents. The message is overwhelmingly not "if you vote for this, there is money in it for you" but "voting for this will save 100 jobs in your district."
Do lobbyists help corporations exercise substantial political power? Yes. But most of the american labor force works for large corporations. Their livelihoods and that of their kids depend on these corporations. Their healthcare and retirement depend on them. Corporations don't need to corrupt the political system to wield power.
> 1) Lobbyists costs a lot of money. The amount Facebook spent on WhatsApp is equivalent to fifty times the lobbying revenues of the top 10 DC lobbying firms combined.
Then again, the amount FB spent on WhatsApp is twice the cost of the Large Hadron Collider, the largest and most expensive scientific facility every built. And roughly the same as the final cost of the experimental fusion reactor ITER, the holy grail of energy sources.
Comparing things to the WhatsApp acquisition price does not tell you much.
While this all looks accurate the conclusion shouldn't be: and therefore lobbying is nothing to worry about. Cognitive capture is in many ways more worrisome than outright quid pro quo corruption. Among other reasons, because there is very little that can be done about it, at least consistent with the First Amendment and liberal principles in general.
The best solution to cognitive capture is to make lobbying easy. If you make it hard to fight the status quo with money, you just make it harder to fight the status quo.
> Cognitive capture is in many ways more worrisome than outright quid pro quo corruption
Agreed, but it's also impossible to avoid this as long as the people in Congress are humans and not robots.
We all believe in something, we all find some point of view more reasonable than another, and we all have experience in life (who we grew up with, who we associate with now) that vastly influence those cognitive biases. We'll always be able to strive to expand points of view and limit time monopolized by any particular cause, but in the end there's no avoiding "cognitive capture".
4) That dirty back-room deals are usually done by lobbyists. In reality, a company that wants to pay off a politician will just donate the money, or offer a lucrative job. Lobbyists are under a lot of scrutiny, so they are the worst people to handle bribes.
If you're a regular citizen / company, you can pay a politician $10,000 to have dinner with them, and hire their best friend as a consultant. If you're a lobbyist, you can't buy them a coffee.
1) How do lobbying firms make revenue when they are basicly money sinkholes conveying surveys?
2) I have read too much of those 'drafts' which ended up being the legislation. And how come Google speaks for the whole industry? Are they In a particular need for change? Did the industry vote for them?
Do lobbyists spend money to influence politicians? Yes? Then it's corruption.
Private money - whether it be from rich people or large corporations - should have no place in politics. The vote of a poor single mother working two jobs to only barely feed her children should carry just as much weight as that of a rich tycoon. If you believe that money should institutionally equate to influence, then you do not believe in equality.
I have enough private money that I can take time off of work to have a meeting with the politician for my district. I might, for example, advocate that government computers use standard document formats rather than proprietary ones. Or I and co-workers may chip in to send one of us to petition OSHA in person, to increase workplace safety requirements.
The National Woman's Party is an example of a lobbying group which worked for decades first for women's suffrage and then for prohibition on sex discrimination and the Equal Rights Amendment. Where was the corruption in that use of money to influence politicians?
In your example of a poor single mother working two jobs, that mother is very unlikely to have the private money to take the time off. Thus, private money will always have an effect on politics.
There are ways to limit its effect. For one, tax the richest people and most profitable companies much more heavily than they are now, and increase social support for the poorest. But by your criteria that's still going to end up with corruption.
The people should be able to influence a politician more often than just at the ballot box. The question is, at what point is that extra influence inappropriate? I believe your use here "corruption" is too strict and binary, such that no government can meet that standard.
Without money, advocacy is merely the expression of sentiment, and sentiment is a valueless currency in the modern world.
One the issues near to my heart is environmental protection. The advancements made in environmental protection over the last 50 years have all been accomplished through the expenditure of money. It costs very little money to convince people to adhere to the old ways. It costs no money to convince West Virginians that coal and coal mining is good. It costs no money to convince Oregonians that logging is good. Commissioning studies to show that the health damage from coal mining would double the price of coal if accounted for? Making movies to help people visualize the catastrophe of strip mining? That costs money.
What irks me the most about liberals' opposition to Citizens United is their failure to realize that money being speech helps them more than it helps conservatives. It costs very little money to promote conservatism. People are predisposed to wanting to preserve the status quo. Its those that oppose the status quo that benefit the most from high profile advocacy. The opposition of the tech industry to surveillance Is the paradigmatic example of this phenomenon. The tech industry will have to spend a lot more money on advocacy to move forward from cold war era views then defense contractors will spend to defend the status quo.
Do lobbyists spend money to influence politicians? Yes? Then it's corruption.
So if I spend money to buy cardboard & a permanent marker, write a picket sign, and picket outside the office of a politician to influence him I am engaging in corruption?
The vote of a poor single mother working two jobs to only barely feed her children should carry just as much weight as that of a rich tycoon
To my understanding, their votes carry the same weight; the problem is the people's votes are easy to "buy". Prop 8 in California was passed when a surge of pro-Prop 8 money flooded the state. Did that money buy politicians? No, it bought votes.
As for money from corporations or private donors- how do you propose campaigns are funded? The only other source is out of the contender's own pockets. But I don't think you'll like that answer either, considering the better-funded campaign usually wins. Only the richest rich would be able to get elected!
>>Do lobbyists spend money to influence politicians? Yes? Then it's corruption.
I have plenty of issues[1] with the whole lobbying process, but with your definition how does anyone get anything done at all? Ever? This is assuming you believe the system can be fixed while still working within the rules of the system. FWIW, I'm personally starting to doubt that but if anyone can pull it off it's companies like Google.
That's ridiculous. Virtually all of government is funded by "private money." Why shouldn't I be able to use my resources to attempt to influence the group of people who can forcefully take an arbitrary percentage of my wealth for my entire life?
> Why shouldn't I be able to use my resources to attempt to influence the group of people who can forcefully take an arbitrary percentage of my wealth for my entire life?
Some people believe that each citizen should have the same ability to influence their government, regardless of how much money each one has to spend.
1) Lobbyists costs a lot of money. The amount Facebook spent on WhatsApp is equivalent to fifty times the annual lobbying revenues of the top 10 DC lobbying firms combined.
2) Lobbying money goes to politicians pockets. American politicians are some of the most thoroughly scrutinized on the planet. Lobbying money doesn't go under the table to some politician. It usually doesn't even go to campaign contributions. The major source of campaign contributions is rich peolple making personal donations, not lobbyists. Lobbying money goes towards advocacy. For example, a lobbyist might commission a survey to show a politician that a particular position, advantageous to a client, is politically popular. They may also propose draft legislation, connect politicians with experts, etc. What Google is doing is a good example of the bread and butter of lobbying: simply helping politicians understand the prevailing point of view of an industry.
3) Lobbying is the same as corruption. The vast majority of lobbying is about helping politicians find votes. Its about showing how what's good for an industry is good for constituents. The message is overwhelmingly not "if you vote for this, there is money in it for you" but "voting for this will save 100 jobs in your district."
Do lobbyists help corporations exercise substantial political power? Yes. But most of the american labor force works for large corporations. Their livelihoods and that of their kids depend on these corporations. Their healthcare and retirement depend on them. Corporations don't need to corrupt the political system to wield power.