▲ 107 points
back
87 comments
Lobbying is nothing more than legalized corruption. When companies lobby, they do so at the expense of the people and other, smaller, competitors who cannot afford to bribe politicians.
Politicians should craft laws based on what's best for the country and not on what's best for the few corporations that manage to outbribe other companies.
Also, remember when Google complained about lobbyists? Former Google CEO Erc Schmidt even admitted that most laws are written by lobbyists.
>"The average American doesn't realize how much of the laws are written by lobbyists" to protect incumbent interests, Google CEO Eric Schmidt told Atlantic editor James Bennet at the Washington Ideas Forum. "It's shocking how the system actually works."
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/10/googl...
That's cool but where are the lines? The problem is that a LOT of lobbying goes on, and we don't know how to allow what, when or why - and no country does it well.
Examples: protests - are they ok? What if they are funded by some group?
What about a concerned citizenry meeting a politician? Is that OK? What if their funding comes from Iran?
It gets real complicated real quickly.
> Politicians should craft laws based on what's best for the country
That seems so simple, but man, that is SOOO complicated. Imagine a law that made life better for 80% of people, but made 20% worse off - should it be implemented? What about 2% better off, 98% worse off, but the worst off 2% amongst us benefited?
That simple sentence fragment is why lobbying, and groups like the NRA and teachers unions, exist and hold so much sway. Many laws affect groups disproportionately, and how we decide who to hurt and why is what politics is, in part, about.
There just aren't any magical, mystical policies where everyone wins, not even things like free trade which has been great for almost everyone on the entire planet.
> That seems so simple, but man, that is SOOO complicated. Imagine a law that made life better for 80% of people, but made 20% worse off - should it be implemented? What about 2% better off, 98% worse off, but the worst off 2% amongst us benefited?
I agree with your premise that it's a hard problem, but I'd add that utilitarian arguments for policy leads to creation of bad short-term policy. Public policy should be focused on the long game of leveling societal playing fields and use short-term tools to ease suffering (stimulus, emergency aid, food stamps, etc).
> There just aren't any magical, mystical policies where everyone wins, not even things like free trade which has been great for almost everyone on the entire planet.
Again, I like your premise but I'd add that the effects of the current form of open trade is still open to historical judgement. Is it great? How does Europe and Asia feel about it?
Anyway, just wanted to add a bit of spice to this discussion - it's interesting.
> Many laws affect groups disproportionately, and how we decide who to hurt and why is what politics is, in part, about.
Let me quote John Rawls with "The Difference Principle" [0] which can indicate some general direction on making laws.
> Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that (a) they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice#The_Differ...
The problem with Rawls is that, brought to its logical conclusion, his ideas essentially say that you can all but enslave the most effective people in your society to benefit the least advantaged, so long as they are slightly more advantaged than the single least advantaged member of your society. It sounds nice on paper, but it's essentially endorsing extreme totalitarian socialism. It's the kind of dystopia Kurt Vonnegut was satirizing in Harrison Bergeron [0].
It also complete ignores the rights of the so call "advantaged" class. From the stand point of Social Contract Theory, society exists because it's advantageous to all of its members to give up some rights in order to protect others. If you systematically disadvantage a group of people, especially those who are deemed the most capable and advantaged, you will quickly leave them with no reason to want to be a member of your society. Unless you plan to run an authoritarian dictatorship, you will be left with few citizens other than the disadvantaged, who will suffer for having the others run off. Not to mention that the idea of intentionally systematically disadvantaging an entire class of people is, on its face, disgusting.
There are plenty of other arguments against Rawls, but the primary ones are made by Nozick in Anarchy, State, and Utopia [1], and he can make them better than I can. Rawls is a brilliant philosopher, but his ideas are better left in the realm of thought experiment, and not in government.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia
Rawls's approach seems to be to say, morally, you don't know in advance which individual you're going to be, and therefore you should arrange society so as to maximize ... to maximize, not the average or expected-value happiness, but the minimum happiness, of the individual you might end up as. So a slight comfort to the worst-off person is worth imposing a significant penalty on everyone else, as long as the penalty isn't so severe as to make someone else worse off than the one person. As if Rawls is extremely risk-averse and thinks this should be the organizing principle of society. If someone took that principle and ran with it, it would probably justify huge amounts of destruction. [1]
Also, consider this interpretation: "The best way to solve everyone's problems is to create the technological singularity, at which point we truly can fix the genetic problems that cause the worst-off person in the world to constantly feel pain; and therefore anything that most efficiently and reliably achieves the singularity is the best long-term option for the worst-off people, even if the short-term aspects of the most efficient approach involve e.g. cutting off all aid to the disabled and euthanizing anyone who's too old to work, nuclear preemptive strikes against "rogue states" that might endanger progress, wiping out all animals and plant species that take up space we could use more efficiently some other way, etc." That obviously carries its own potential justifications of mass destruction. I'm not saying all of those are necessarily the most efficient or reliable approach—e.g. the nuclear preemptive strikes might lead to a worse backlash from the surviving countries—but some of them might be. More importantly, some people might be persuaded that these are the most efficient or reliable approach, and be mistaken. That is a fundamental problem: even if we all agree on a certain set of goals (which is a big if), reasonable people can have very different, mutually exclusive ways that they think are the best way to fulfill them.
Note that "promulgate my philosophy/plan to everyone, and kill all the heretics who don't accept it" is one potential step that could be added to any plan; and it seems like if you did manage to carry it out, it would guarantee success; and if your philosophy/plan is big enough and important enough, it might seem like it's worth doing (and thus it will probably tempt some adherents of every philosophy ever), unless you have, say, principles that say you should never do a thing like that, no matter the apparent benefit.
Raymond argued[2] that such principles can be justified within utilitarianism: you can never be sufficiently certain you're right. If you're right and you kill the wrongthinkers, maybe this gets you there a little faster than if you used more peaceful methods: a slight benefit. If you're wrong and you kill the "wrongthinkers", the consequences are extremely severe. It's worth killing the wrongthinkers if and only if the chance you're wrong is smaller than the ratio of "slight benefit" to "extremely severe". The principle would be, you're not allowed to decide that the chance you're wrong is that small.
That might work. But one way or another, I think you need to have principles that prevent you from knowingly doing these horribly destructive things. I would say anyone without such principles is not civilized; and, from recent revolutionary history, it seems those with strong moral philosophies and no such principles may be dangerously uncivilized. (Note: Stepping outside of civilization may be appropriate in some circumstances. But then you have no right to complain when good civilized people arrest you and punish you.)
[1] This argument is expanded on here (not by me): http://www1.cmc.edu/pages/faculty/ASchroeder/docs/RawlsMaxim...
The citation says: "Surely Rawls wasn’t crazy, so we can conclude that this isn’t how he meant to pursue the argument." Which I don't think is very helpful.
The sticky part is who decides who has what level of advantage.
> That's cool but where are the lines? The problem is that a LOT of lobbying goes on, and we don't know how to allow what, when or why - and no country does it well.
The fact that the alternative isn't figured out I think isn't justification for keeping a broken system. The alternative doesn't have to be perfect, only better. So yeah, there could be protests funded by some group... but that already exists in the current system too. On top of straight up giving money to politicians in exchange for their attention.
> Imagine a law that made life better for 80% of people, but made 20% worse off - should it be implemented? What about 2% better off, 98% worse off, but the worst off 2% amongst us benefited? That simple sentence fragment is why lobbying, and groups like the NRA and teachers unions, exist and hold so much sway. Many laws affect groups disproportionately, and how we decide who to hurt and why is what politics is, in part, about.
I have two things to say about this in general.
1. I'm from outside the US, so maybe we think of politics differently. Where I'm from, we think of what's "right" or "wrong", not really who is benefited or affected so much. I'm from Mexico-- the president recently uncovered massive amounts of corruption and illegal, institutionalized leaching of gasoline out of the state oil company, and so decided to shut down all pipes and distribute gas using guarded trucks.
A whole 5 states or so have had gasoline distribution issues-- there's lines in some gas stations that extend for 4+ hours. Everyone has been negatively affected-- but over three quarters of the country support his measures because it might be a burden, but it's the "right" thing to do.
And I know it's not always as easy to tell what's right and wrong, but ultimately that's the framework, IMO, in which all these conversations should be had-- ethics, not whose life will be better or worse.
2. Lobbying doesn't "need" to exist. Other countries do without it, and much better on a number of fronts it'd seem. Take the "climate debate" that seems to still be raging in the US, even though the rest of the world has pretty much acknowledged there's no such debate. Oil giants are spending $115 million a year to oppose climate policy [1], but there is no "sustainability giants" that can drop $115 million to "counteract" that influence. How can it ever be a fair system if in lobbying only the side with money is represented?
[1]: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oil-companies-climate-p...
> I'm from outside the US, so maybe we think of politics differently. Where I'm from, we think of what's "right" or "wrong", not really who is benefited or affected so much. I'm from Mexico--
Please. Mexico has 20x the political corruption the US has, and most of the money comes from the cartels, not the big companies building moats.
so is this just a slippery slope argument saying we should let super-corporations/billionaires write laws just in case a teachers union tries to pass legislation?
>Imagine a law that made life better for 80% of people, but made 20% worse off - should it be implemented? What about 2% better off, 98% worse off, but the worst off 2% amongst us benefited?
Wow it's almost like this is what politics is about. We might as well give up completely because it's way too hard to do math or let people make decisions
If this is too hard for you it doesn't mean you have to try to make everyone else give up too.
> Lobbying is nothing more than legalized corruption.
Lobbying is talking to your representatives. It's the "petition of Government for a redress of grievances" in the first amendment, often combined with the "right of people peaceably to assemble".
Bribery is a problem with actual laws against it, laws that probably need revision given the quid pro quo is probably too narrow:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_v._United_States
But I don't see lawmakers or voters taking it all too seriously considering they have a habit of supporting politicians with open cases and even convictions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Jefferson#Corruptio...
In parts of Canada, up until recently mayor candidates were free to pocket any leftover campaign contributions. One could be forgiven for confusing this with blatant, but legal, bribery. The rules were only changed about 10 years ago:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/province-cuts-off-poc...
In US elections, wealthy candidates can loan money to their campaigns and then later pay themselves back from future contributions.
> Lobbying is nothing more than legalized corruption
I’ve lobbied. I took a train to Albany to teach my representatives about an issue. I went with a few other people from an interest group, some of whom couldn’t afford the trip and so had their tickets and hotel stays subsidised by others. This is lobbying.
Representative democracy necessitates lobbying. Representatives with incomplete knowledge must legislate over issues they have no clue about. Outside experts have a clue. The process by which these parties are brought together is lobbying.
It can go wrong, and the pool of experts selected will be biased by each group. Ensuring fairness and transparency is paramount. But expecting lobbying to go away is naïve and betrays a misunderstanding of republican democracy.
Making PowerPoint presentations to lobbyists and suggesting draft language is “legalized corruption?” Would you prefer that laws regulating technology were drafted without input from technology companies?
What exactly do you think lobbying entails?
Let's say I'm a congressman and I meet with a lobbyist. How am I getting bribed?
Post retirement, same congressman get hired as an executive for the company or congressman starts an startup which is brought by the lobbyist company or ...
There are far more complex ways for congressmen to receive benefits for accepting lobbyist agenda.
Any action by congressman that doesn't make sense to common mass is result of lobbying. Every human being possesses basic intellect to konw what's good/or not for us and its the greed that persuade them to act differently.
- If you've received campaign contributions from the corporation said lobbyist works for, I think it's apparent to everyone how, (you scratch my back...).
- You're giving a citizen which may not even live in your constituency and works for a corporation the kind of access to yourself that you'd never grant a regular constituent.
- Over the decades, an understanding has been built of 'the revolving door', how former government workers switch to the private sector and then come back as lobbyists, utilizing their contacts and friendships to get what their employer wants. Or they come back into government with a massive exit package, while still being loyal to their former employer and vote for wars etc, when then conveniently their 'former' employer can send equipment for etc. Then they switch to the private sector again, collecting millions annually for a position that has no real responsibility.
The notion that there's corruption only when filmed passing banknotes is absurd, there's a reason the notion of intention exists in criminal law.
I'm not sure what you are asking. It can happen in many different forms.
For instance, the lobbyist asks for measures profiting their business that go against your campaign promises, but you can't refuse, because otherwise they won't pay for your reelection campaign.
It depends. Who are you on this list?
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/members-list
For example, the top recipient of donations, Beto O'Rourke, received $224,463 from Alphabet Inc (AKA Google) in 2018.
This increased lobbying by tech companies was the result of everyone taking the lesson of United States v Microsoft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...) to heart and trying to make sure they did not end up in the government's crosshairs.
Can anyone explain how these numbers are calculated?
Are these perhaps just expenses related to lobbying (eg: hiring an external agency, or expenses for a particular lobbying action)? Are salaries of internal staff included?
$20m sounds ridiculously low. Giving the magnitude of these efforts, I'd expect the costs for the legal work alone to be far greater than that number.
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D00006782... : it seems to be by summing up costs to known lobbying agencies.
Interesting, so lobbying efforts from within the company appear to be unaccounted for. I'd also venture that ancillary costs (especially legal services) are unaccounted for.
That really diminishes the meaning of the quoted $20m. For all we know, Google and Facebook could be spending ten times as much on staff lobbyists and lawyers.
Lobbying is actually shockingly cheap, that's why it's so effective for those willing to play the game. Look up the stakes (both sides) for net neutrality. Some people got bought for 4-figure sums
Well, not all of lobbying effort can be shockingly cheap. Referring to a quote attributed to Eric Schmidt from a sibling comment:
> "The average American doesn't realize how much of the laws are written by lobbyists"
You need lawyers for that, and that's certainly not going to be cheap. I don't think it's even remotely possible to do that with the $20m quoted in the article.
If a company employs 3 lawyers full-time to work on some lobbying effort/issue XYZ, are their costs reflected in those $20m? What if they hire external lawyers?
And that's just the legal side. I can think of all kinds of ancillary costs to lobbying, that it total wouldn't fit an annual budget of $20m. Not even close.
Are we upset that big tech is lobbying, or are we upset about lobbying in general?
I can’t think of any big US corporation that doesn’t spend money lobbying.
Lobbying itself is not culprit as it has been present since the beginning of society. Only thing that make it heinous now is the change in mindset of people(more greedy).
Its the responsibility of people to support virtuous corporations(choosing product they use) just like they vote their politicians to power.
If by lobbying you mean bribery, then yes, it has been around forever.
I think the way it is done today, legitimized, in the open, and at scale, is a relatively recent phenomenon.
Can anyone explain how lobbying works in the U.S? Where does the money end up?
Hi I represent the *PAC, do you have a few hours to chat about $TOPIC over a nice dinner? We are a PAC prepared to fund politicians in favor of friendly campaigns $X
Candidates' and parties' election fund.
The article does a poor job at putting the numbers in perspective. How much is it compared to other industries like Pharmaceutical or the aggro industry?
Now facebook is working on election integrity. I love it how they are always able to find a cool name for everything.
Non native speaker here. What is the difference between government lobbying and corruption?
Lobbying is talking to congressmen, which isn't corrupt at all.
What is the $21.2 million figure for?
Lobbying is organised persuasion of officials. Corruption is - at its simplest - paying officials.
But organised persuasion can be expensive when you hire the best lobbyists (they are basically sales guys) and they will live in Trump Tower etc...
Lol, something tells me these guys won't be anywhere near Trump Tower.
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?cycle=2018&id=D0...
It's not exactly like they have much of a choice.
Here's a piece on how Microsoft initially tried not to get sucked in the quagmire of DC lobbying:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QivPQdRc49s&t=155s
TL;DR: DC to MSFT : if you think we're going to let you do your thing without collecting a piece of the action, you're deluded.
duh. you’d have to be incompetent not to with the way our political system works.
Anyone who doesn't loot defenseless stores is a fool!
That has me thinking about extending the metaphor horrifically. Part of the answer for "why not?" has been "the owner has a gun". It obviously violence would be non-ideal on several levels but a really any sufficient counter force could work and probably would work better albeit with collective action problems. The reason "lobbying" works for cheap is because it helps get them elected. If it was as bad as having an extramarital affair or otherwise a kiss of death the "lobbying" would get more expensive. Similarly if lobbyists got boycotted to hell and back they would hesitate more.
Which companies with a large footprint don’t spend big on lobbying efforts? I’m sorry but why is this news? Is it particularly nefarious or even noteworthy at all?
No offense to op, but this is clickbait garbage.
It is not clickbait. Even without further information about specific policies being pursued, the article has hard numbers about the amount spend for lobbying. I don't think that it is restricted to these quite low amounts, but the information is definitely interesting.
Well for years the tech industry was known for not lobbying but innovating. For a while the byphrase was "winners innovate, losers litigate". Given the decline combined with lobbying that is not a reassuring sign for the industry.