Every time this topic comes up, I wonder why lobbying is legal. Can anyone give me a good explanation? The only one I've really heard is "lobbying is free speech, corporations need free speech".
Lobbying is just a fancy word for talking to Congresspeople. Thanks to human psychology, it doesn't even have to look like the mental image many people have of the lobbyist walking in with a suitcase of cash for some major cash transfer in the law. All you have to do is spend time with the Congressperson until their hindbrain decides you are "one of theirs", and then even if they don't consciously steer things your way they will subconsciously steer them your way.
How do you outlaw that? What are you going to do, cloister your Congressperson in their office and forbid them from seeing people? It's actually a big part of their job. Are you going to say that if a Congressperson is considering a certain regulation of a certain industry, under no circumstances should they ever talk to anyone with any connection to that industry? As stupid as law may sometimes be today, that would actually be even stupider.
Yeah, sometimes it does devolve into the suitcase scenario but really that's quite unsubtle.
I think the fundamental problem is that running for national office in the US is extremely expensive¹, so anyone who wants the job and is not independently wealthy has to spend a lot of time fund-raising. Even if the fund-raising does not involve outright corruption, it requires an aspiring Congressperson to spend a lot of time hanging out with people who can afford to make large donations.
The best solution I can think of is public financing of elections, but I am very pessimistic about such a law getting through Congress, even if the Democrats retake the House in 2012.
¹According to figures gathered by the Campaign Finance Institute, it costs about $1.3M to win a House seat and about $7.5M to win a Senate seat. (http://www.cfinst.org/data/HistoricalStats.aspx)
Why the assumption that Democrats are inherently more interested in campaign finance reform? Obama ran the most expensive campaign in history and took plenty of special interest money.
Seriously, nothing will happen if not even the comparably bright people on this site is able to digest the fact that politics in the US is more complicated (and, indeed more broken) than "democrat good, republican bad". They're pretty much all scum, and the few honest people seem to be pretty well distributed across the parties.
People assume that democrats are more interested in campaign finance reform because most serious attempts to reform campaign finance laws have been spearheaded by Democrats and opposed by establishment Republicans. Every senator who voted against McCain-Feingold was a Republican, and many prominent Republicans and conservative organizations (Mitch McConnell, Newt Gingrich, Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute) approved of the Citizens United decision.
Every politician does whatever they can within the rules (and then some) to get elected, but some want to change the rules because, for example, banning corporate donations would probably hurt Republicans more than Democrats.
Well, McCain sponsored and Bush signed McCain-Feingold. Second, Citizens United isn't about campaign finance per se. Since the people spending money under CU can't even talk to the campaign they support, this category of spending is at least a layer removed from the candidate, and quid-pro-quo becomes more difficult.
But finally, and my most important point: No, Republicans, to the extend they have a common position doesn't want campaign finance reform. But neither does the democrats (to the extend they have a common position). Most significantly, a very prominent Democrat broke his pledge to take public financing in the face of raising heaps of money and outspend his opponent 2:1.
I mean, perfectly honest, Democratic congress or not, is Obama going to get behind serious campaign finance reform?
Does anyone else see the irony of public campaign financing as a solution to problems explained in the this article?
In the same way that companies distort regulations of their industry to thwart competition, politicians will ensure that public campaign financing rules will prevent newcomers (e.g. tea party, green party, etc) from ever getting elected.
You don't. We change the societal web of incentives such that the people who become legislators are capable of making the distinction between unethical lobbying and their role as representatives on their own.
The people we're getting right now sometimes seem cognitively unable to draw this distinction at all.
EDIT: And how do we do that, I hear you cry? We'll what we're doing right now is a good start. Capitalists, entrepreneurs and some might say downright greedy people having loud, public conversations questioning and debating the role of private business in government, and vice-versa. If this keeps happening, the meme that perhaps such unrestrained lobbying might be harmful will permeate mainstream culture, and when the politicians of the future are preparing their campaign platforms, personal ethical responsibility in their relationship to industry will be at the top of their minds, because they perceive them to be at the top of the minds of those who will be voting for them.
Obviously it is too ambitious to expect politicians to act selflessly. Therefore we must make it in their interests to act ethically.
It would be great if that worked, but it's not like this is the first time corruption in government has been an issue and it's not the first time people have tried to get rid of it either. It comes back as soon as the public stops watching closely.
Indeed. The only way to make sure that politics are not corrupt is to make sure that we never elect a person of dubious morals or intellect. Right now, that's basically all we ever elect. If there's a person in power interested in misappropriating or exploiting that power for self-interest over the general interest, he will probably find a way to do so eventually.
This is why it's relevant when a politician has had an affair; if he is unwilling to uphold the most solemn covenants he makes in his lifetime, to the people to whom is the closest, and upon whom the negative impact of his actions will hit the hardest, why do we have any idea that he will be willing to uphold his covenant to perform in the general interest or uphold the Constitution when his covenant is with an amorphous, anonymous mass of "The People"?
DHH told me to attempt the impossible if I want to achieve success. I see it as profoundly unimaginative and unambitious to restrict this notion to the fields of business and programming.
You've gotta have a go!
Besides, 'watching closely' is pretty trivial now. The government certainly seems pretty good at doing it to us.
Sorry to be so pessimistic, but I would say your position is more like trying things that have historically failed many times, but thinking it might work this time. I'm trying to think of a parallel in startups, but I'm drawing a blank.
I always picture sacks with '$' on the side rather than suitcases, but I always have difficulty shaking the feeling that lobbying is basically a cash transaction. I constantly have to talk myself out of this. The following is a great, brief string of reasoning that helps: http://volokh.com/2010/01/24/money-and-speech-2
You don't. In short, you de-incentivize lobbying by drastically reducing the size, scope, and budget of the federal government as mandated in the Constitution.
The Constitution sets limits on the scope of federal powers. It also originally banned income taxes. The only money mentioned in the Constitution is gold or silver. All of these restrict the size of the government and its budget.
Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 5 explicitly grants Congress the power to coin money. It restricts the individual states to only using gold and silver as legal tender.
Income taxes were never "banned". Before Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust in 1895, federal income taxes were considered an "indirect" tax constitutionally, and thus only had to meet the requirements of Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 1, which was that taxes must be uniform geographically. Pollock declared federal income taxes a "direct" tax, which thus had to meet further requirements under Art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 3, which called for the receipts of direct taxes to be apportioned proportionally to the population of each individual state.
The Sixteenth Amendment (ratified 18 years after Pollock) lifted the requirement of proportional distribution; it did not change the constitutionality (or unconstitutionality) of federal income taxes.
Strict single term limits for all members of Congress would go a long way toward making this natural tendency manageable - if it's a natural cycle (and I think it is), then it makes sense to re-start that cycle as often as possible.
I don't know if this is actually true, but I have heard that the short term limits in California's congress is a big part of why special interest groups have such outsized power in this state. The method of action is supposedly that inexperienced congresspeople do not know how to navigate the processes in Sacramento, and the lobbies come along to help them out.
Like I said, I don't know if it's true, but I don't really see a mechanism by which single term limits will help the situation. In fact, they may make it even worse by making it hard for politicians to distinguish themselves by a record of actually doing good. Instead, the public will have absolutely nothing to go on besides advertisements, which are paid for by guess who.
For the record, I have heard this said from both sides of the aisle. I'm not standing by its truthfulness because government brokenness is a complex issue, but it certainly seems like a valid explanation to me.
When newbies get elected, they have a tough time navigating the corridors of power. This is where the lobbyists come in: they've seen the system (they probably were a part of it before becoming lobbyists), they know how it works, and they're just too happy to help out. This way their influence grows stronger year by year.
Term limits is not the answer. I think California's open primaries will help in electing moderates, people who are willing to look at all sides of the equation.
I keep getting stuck on this point as well. One possible idea I keep coming back to: What about limiting campaign contributions to $1 per person/entity? I am guessing there would be quite a bit of backlash against this idea (Besides pols and lobbyists themselves, doesn't media get a lot of advertising dollars from campaigns?) but maybe if we can devalue the process significantly, it won't be quite so one-sided/game-able?
Sorry, I didn't check back to see that anyone had posted...
Just in case you see this, my idea was to limit ALL contributions to $1 per entity - person, corporation, whatever.
Hmmm... So if a corporation had/forced all employees to offer up their dollar to a specific candidate, looks like you are right - It could/would still be gamed... sigh.
I do not think the problem is them talking. I think the problem is them giving money indirectly through campaign contributions.
One statistic the article states is that some organisation spent about 700,000 dollars in lobbying and 2.5 millions in campaign contributions. I only wonder which was more effective.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Imagine you are a legislator in the US. You are one of 535 people who pass the laws that effect every industry and group of the country. How arrogant would it be to assume that you can make good decisions about a certain industry or group, without actually talking to representatives from that group?
Now imagine you're a key figure in an industry, such as, say, the internet industry, and you have opinions about things, such as, say, net neutrality. How foolish would it be for you not to attempt to influence the decision makers by providing them with your view of the issue?
This is what lobbying is. It has nothing to do with free speech, and everything to do with information flow. You certainly would never outlaw it.
Except the problem is the only people whose voices are heard in this are the rich. Telecoms can afford to do this, while the people on the other side of it don't have the time or means to.
That is not true. In years past, money helped a lot, but letters and phone calls have always had some level of effectiveness. Dollar for dollar, a letter signed by a constituent is more effective than an expensive lobbiest (it helps that the cost of letters are disproportionately low - unfortunately, it takes a lot of letters to be effective).
There are a lot of "grass roots" lobbying going on for nearly free based on emails, web pages, and social media. In fact, it is so effective that many lobbiests have adopted "grass roots" mechanisms to lobby - see "astroturfing" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing.
A corporation is a group of people. A group will tend to be richer than a single person.
And a letter from that group is probably more representative of the collective opinion of the people working there than (say) a Senator's votes are representative of their state.
I've never worked for any corporation whose corporate opinion had any relation to my own. If employees can be required to distance themselves from their employers when stating an opinion on their blogs, employers should be required to state that the opinion of the corporation does not necessarily represent the collective opinions of its employees.
It doesn't work this way. The corporation could get sued if an employee (representing the corporation) says the wrong thing. The converse won't happen.
Yes, I was one of those, too. And yet, people use employees in arguments for corporate free speech (as did the post to which I originally replied ("people working there")).
Suppose Congress is going to pass a law. They don't realize it, but it will devastate your industry by changing the rules midgame. Think about what Ubercab ("illegal cab") or AirBnb ("illegal hotel") recently went through.
Now, imagine that you can't sound the alarm. This is going to put people out of work and ruin your business, but you can't say anything.
That's what it means to prohibit lobbying.
To stop lobbying, you need to stop Congressmen from getting power-drunk and passing random rules and regulations that affect the economy based on something they just read in the New York Times (like the recent debit/credit thing). Companies generally don't want to lobby, they just do it as a defensive measure.
The problem is not lobbying. A lobbyist should be free to ask a member of Congress if their organization can have a tax break. The problem is the Congressman who grants the tax break. We need to stop thinking of our representatives as innocent victims of lobbyist culture.
This is an interesting chicken-and-egg question we had not so long before - is it legislature or is it business that produces corruption? The answer is not black and white and depends on jurisdiction.
I think it's incredibly black & white. It must be the legislators. They are the ones with power to pass laws. Even if businesses "encourage" (not "produce") corruption, the law makers must have some control over their own actions, right? Why don't defense contracts lobby Dennis Kucinich? Why doesn't Monsanto lobby Ron Paul? If there were 535 legislators who respected the constitution, there wouldn't be a lobbying industry.
The corporations control both fiscal (tax revenue) and political (jobs) levers of the legislature. The politicians in the US (or most democratic countries for that matter) cannot simply say no to the money from large multinationals. Especially in the US where any interference with the business e.g. nationalisation is considered communist taboo topic.
You're missing the core point. The politician doesn't need to say no to corporate money. He can, and should, say yes to all the money that any person or business wants to donate. The problem is when the politician writes into law a regulation, tariff, or rule that benefits a specific donor.
I fundraise for my kid's school. A local bank, ABC Savings, makes a considerable donation. There's no expectation that the school will pass a rule where we only accept students if their parents bank at ABC Savings. There's a difference between accepting campaign fundraising and quid pro quo.
I don't see how (s)he can be saying yes to all the money coming in and NOT be favoring one over another. It's not like everyone is giving equal amounts of money?
In your own example - it's not like school will not accept somebody if they're not using ABC Savings. But they sure as hell will cater more to those who do, than to those who don't?
The problem is not lobbying, that's a symptom. The problem is deep and multi-fold. On the one hand you have a very broken and ineffectual news media which focuses on trivialities and scandal and otherwise ignores all else. A media which has perverted the process of gaining elected office by making it unpalateable for most folks, leaving it only to career politicians and glory hounds. On the other hand you have a bloated and excessively powerful government. The increase in tax revenues, laws, and regulations in the last several generations has concentrated a great deal of power and control of money in DC and in state capitols. This excessive power invites corruption, when every business depends on the activity of congress then every business will do its best to influence congress.
The only long term solution to the problem is to improve journalism (which is happening slowly) to encourage a better class of office seekers combined with a reduction in the importance of government in business and daily lives, to make it less worthwhile and less necessary for businesses to influence government.
Lobbying is a symptom of the problem that the federal government has way too much money to hand out to various states, corporations, industries, government programs, etc. The federal government as described in the Constitution should be orders of magnitude smaller than it is now, and should have orders of magnitude fewer funds to disperse.
Lobbying itself shouldn't be illegal, it should just be de-incentivized by controlling the federal government's size and scope per the Constitution. This would also fix a lot of the corruption among federal representatives, who all too often are judged for the amount of booty they can bring back to their states.
Actually, a corporation is an entity empowered by law to do certain things (e.g., shield its owners from personal liability) that a mere aggregation of people cannot do. The Supreme Court majority in the Citizens United case missed this important distinction.
I think it’s possible to draw logical and constitutional lines between
¶ 100 people writing letters to their Congresscritters advocating for the same policy
¶ a manager of a corporation (with 100 shareholders) writing Congresscritters to advocate for some policy (that not all 100 shareholders think is a good idea)
¶ a corporation hiring a lobbyist to be its permanent advocate in Washington
> a manager of a corporation (with 100 shareholders) writing Congresscritters to advocate for some policy (that not all 100 shareholders think is a good idea)
Actually, those shareholders do think that it's a good idea because they've continued to be shareholders.
> corporation hiring a lobbyist to be its permanent advocate in Washington
That's just like me than me writing a letter every day.
I realize it's unlikely to happen of course. I just wanted to know the actual arguments justifying it. Even the most corrupt politician wouldn't come out and say "I'm pro-lobbying because my good buddy Megacorp says I should be, and he's paid me an awful lot to believe that."
Corporations have rights to free speech only if they are people under the law. Currently, they are, but I think there are major problems with that. It takes responsibility from those making decisions and puts it on some general body.
Corporations don't make decisions, though. People make decisions. We act as individuals. France doesn't attack Britain. Soldiers in one army attack soldiers in another army. We act as individuals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodological_individualism
I don't agree with everything it said, but The Corporation makes some good points about how corporations as legal entities allow people to abdicate responsibility. Watch it on Youtube here: http://bit.ly/hb0wuL.
Many of the same dangers are present in democracy, especially as it degenerates into mob rule. Unless individuals bear responsibility for their own actions, we can be pretty barbaric. Witness the war brutalities committed in Vietnam or WWII when soldiers thought they could absolve themselves of responsibility by blaming the chain of command. Also, see the later chapters of Hayek's Road to Serfdom.
