When Lobbying was Illegal • Hacker News Board

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#21

Post by sosborn » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 3:40 AM UTC

matthewbauer wrote: post #4

jahnu wrote: post #3

> Wouldn’t it be nice if lobbying were illegal? Honestly, no. It's essential that law makers can be informed by all interested parties. The problem is a lack of transparency. Complex to control but not impossible. Every single meeting between an elected officials and anyone lobbying them should be in some way recorded and made public. As if it were a public debate. The other issue is fund raising. Too broad and compl…

That's a good point. The biggest problem with it though is how effective it can be at influencing policy against the public interest. I suppose if I wrote a letter to my congressperson it would be considered lobbying but that's rarely what people mean.

> The biggest problem with it though is how effective it can be at influencing policy against the public interest.

The thing is that "public interest" is hard to define and dependent on each individual. Someone lobbying for a nuclear power plant in "City A" will be lauded by some and derided by others. In this case, is lobbying good, or is it bad? Who decides that?

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#22

Post by BurningFrog » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 3:50 AM UTC

entee wrote: post #15

Perhaps the least understood view of lobbying that really informs how perverse the system has become is that as a general rule people believe the lobbyists are calling the congresspeople to offer them money. In reality, it's the congresspeople, desperate for campaign cash, that are calling the lobbyists for money. http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/01/27/145923803/the-f... The cost of congressional elections has…

The obvious solution to this is to make it easier for politicians to raise money.

Instead everyone is demanding to make it harder. The lack of Economics instinct is costly for our society.

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#23

Post by jack9 » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 4:08 AM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #22

entee wrote: post #15

Perhaps the least understood view of lobbying that really informs how perverse the system has become is that as a general rule people believe the lobbyists are calling the congresspeople to offer them money. In reality, it's the congresspeople, desperate for campaign cash, that are calling the lobbyists for money. http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/01/27/145923803/the-f... The cost of congressional elections has…

The obvious solution to this is to make it easier for politicians to raise money. Instead everyone is demanding to make it harder. The lack of Economics instinct is costly for our society.

That's not obvious at all.

Political speech can be codified and regulated with channels and times (which is largely already is via the political "seasons" and campaign routes). The questions of how to structure it, are many and varied, but would result in a normalized process that is distinctly devoid of corruption. Take money out of the process.

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#24

Post by stretchwithme » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 4:09 AM UTC

A winner-take-all electoral system concentrates power and enables winners to sell influence.

If I could hire whichever representative I want to exercise my vote in the legislature and fire him whenever I want, chances are I will have a representative that follows my wishes.

How would a collective decision making system work if you were designing it from scratch? Would it look anything like the American system?

No, I think it would be more like a parliamentary system using proportional representation.

But even that falls far short of what we could accomplish with modern technology.

Its also worth pointing out that the Founders did not set up elections for both houses of Congress. The Senate was appointed by the governors of the states. After that was changed, it became easier to buy influence. And easier to centralize everything farther away from the people.

But that can be turned around.

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#25

Post by jeffdavis » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 4:11 AM UTC

Why don't we just pay lawmakers $1M a year, or maybe more?

The fact that a lawmaker is impressed by a nice dinner or a basketball game is embarrassing.

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#26

Post by jeffdavis » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 4:15 AM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #10

aaron-lebo wrote: post #5

This is very selective reading of history. Politics were probably more corrupt and lobbying was even more dominant (just in different forms) in the 1800s. Obviously, the train has gone off the rails at this point, but we aren't at a fundamentally different place politically than we were in, say 1896, when many of the same issues were at play.

One aspect is that in the 1800s the federal government had maybe 5% of the power it has today. So congress had far less product to sell.

Centralizing power makes corruption much more efficient.

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#27

Post by learc83 » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 4:33 AM UTC

jeffdavis wrote: post #25

Why don't we just pay lawmakers $1M a year, or maybe more? The fact that a lawmaker is impressed by a nice dinner or a basketball game is embarrassing.

They're not. Lobbyists are breaking federal law if they take a congressman out to a nice dinner.

Paying them more wouldn't solve this problem because running an election campaign is so expensive that they spend the majority of their time trying to raise money. They end up taking positions that are friendly to potential donors in the hope that the donors will keep sending them money.

The major problem isn't that they trade favors to lobbyists to enrich themselves directly (although some undoubtedly are), the problem is that they trade favors to lobbyists in order to keep getting re-elected.

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#28

Post by entee » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 4:36 AM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #17

entee wrote: post #15

Perhaps the least understood view of lobbying that really informs how perverse the system has become is that as a general rule people believe the lobbyists are calling the congresspeople to offer them money. In reality, it's the congresspeople, desperate for campaign cash, that are calling the lobbyists for money. http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/01/27/145923803/the-f... The cost of congressional elections has…

This is true for direct contributions to a candidate's campaign, for contributions to an member of Congress's "personal PAC", and for contributions to political parties. It's not true for contributions to "super PACs" and other independent expenditures, aka outside money--the stuff the Citizens United decision liberalized. The reason for that is that the law (even post-CU) prohibits coordination between a candidate a…

All true.

Thing is though, it's not about Ted Cruz, or Obama or even the congress. Sure, it's a problem at those levels, but it's a REAL problem at the state and local level. As a super PAC you can have a much larger influence in these relatively less watched elections as you can in a national election. These smaller elections have candidates that aren't as well known and don't have the money to fight back.

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#29

Post by JoBrad » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 4:51 AM UTC

mapt wrote: post #16

jahnu wrote: post #3

> Wouldn’t it be nice if lobbying were illegal? Honestly, no. It's essential that law makers can be informed by all interested parties. The problem is a lack of transparency. Complex to control but not impossible. Every single meeting between an elected officials and anyone lobbying them should be in some way recorded and made public. As if it were a public debate. The other issue is fund raising. Too broad and compl…

"The problem is a lack of transparency" might have been true in some historical era when there was less money involved; We could target a singular corrupt politician taking bribes if we knew about the bribes. Sure. But that's not the problem we have. Our problem is fund-raising. Politicians are not meeting once every few years with a lobbyist at 2AM beneath the Lincoln Memorial, they're spending 60% of their time on…

What I find hilarious (and a little soul-sucking for the politicians), is that the money that they raise from taxpayers is used...to convince taxpayers to elect them, so they can raise money from taxpayers...ad nauseam

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#30

Post by mirimir » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 4:51 AM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #13

aaron-lebo wrote: post #5

This is very selective reading of history. Politics were probably more corrupt and lobbying was even more dominant (just in different forms) in the 1800s. Obviously, the train has gone off the rails at this point, but we aren't at a fundamentally different place politically than we were in, say 1896, when many of the same issues were at play.

And the article misleads about the state of lobbying today, for example: > lobbyists who take out lawmakers for expensive lunches A lobbyist who buys an expensive lunch for a lawmaker (member of Congress) is committing a federal offense under the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. The rule is so strict that if a member of Congress is attending a public event with food at a lobbying org, the org cannot…

Lobbyists must be doing something to warrant all the money involved, no? Arguably, lawmakers are being persuaded. Could it just be the abstract strength of their arguments? Somehow, I doubt that.