Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When Lobbying was Illegal

priceonomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 165 posts

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#41

Post by tomp »

kbaker wrote: post #34
kbaker wrote: post #33

This article kinda just glosses over any causes of lobbying, and then complains about the symptoms. There is one incredibly interesting video I have seen which lays out a major root cause of corruption in the US, and the rise of lobbying and corruption since the 1970s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gEz__sMVaY (Cardboard Box Reform) It is long, but well-reasoned and supported by a lot of evidence. Definitely worth…

TL;DW (sorry, this is still long, the video is an hour!): Something happened in the 1970s which caused a major shift in a number of indicators in the US, leading to a general decline and increase in corruption in Congress. Lots of media kinds of sees this trend happening, but none of them have found a cause. The author was in Africa, thinking about how E-voting could help to reduce the costs of voting. Which sounds g…

This is awesome, thanks for the link, and especially for the summary!

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#42

Post by markdown »

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…

> Honestly, no. It's essential that law makers can be informed by all interested parties.

Except lobbying does the opposite of that. It means only the wealthy parties are heard.

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#43

Post by grecy »

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.

>but we aren't at a fundamentally different place politically than we were in, say 1896

I really don't think you should say that like it's a good thing.

It's like saying "American is less corrupt than North Korea!" . That's not saying much.

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#44

Post by ljf »

learc83 wrote: post #27
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…

So should we pay them less maybe, so that only those that care about politics run? Or does that leave them more open to bribery? A complex problem to solve!

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#45

Post by raquo »

ljf wrote: post #44
learc83 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So should we pay them less maybe, so that only those that care about politics run? Or does that leave them more open to bribery? A complex problem to solve!

The problem seems to be that a slightly indirect variation of bribery (aka lobbying) has been legalized in the first place, not that such bribery is hard to detect.

If there was any political will to solve this problem, it would have been solved long ago.

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#46

Post by raquo »

yuhong wrote: post #8
matthewbauer wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? I think the biggest problem with campaign contributions is that ads are so incredibly effective at getting congresspeople reelected. Maybe if everyone agreed to ignore these ads campaign contributions would be worthless. But there's a significant enough number of people who are swayed by it to matter.

I am talking about in the future when less people watch TV for example.

People are always gonna be getting video content from somewhere, and they're not gonna be paying for it enough to make it ad-free, so they're gonna see ads regardless of the medium.

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#47

Post by joshka »

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…

“You as a lobbyist cannot buy me a dinner for $40,” Mr. Ackerman said in an interview, as he nibbled finger food at a recent conference on government ethics in New York. “But if you give a contribution to my campaign, I can take you to dinner, and we can discuss politics or official business. You, the lobbyist, can give my campaign $1,000, and the campaign can pay for our dinner. That’s perfectly legal, and it’s perfectly dumb.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20lobby.html

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#48

Post by danieltillett »

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 solution is to actually increase the number of politicians so that each district is small enough that you don't need money to get elected (you need districts of about 25,000 voters). The crazy thing is it doesn't even cost anymore money because as you increase the politicians you take away their staff.

If you want to know more about this idea see [1].

1. http://www.thirty-thousand.org

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#49

Post by mtgx »

danieltillett wrote: post #48
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 solution is to actually increase the number of politicians so that each district is small enough that you don't need money to get elected (you need districts of about 25,000 voters). The crazy thing is it doesn't even cost anymore money because as you increase the politicians you take away their staff. If you want to know more about this idea see [1]. 1. http://www.thirty-thousand.org

Even better, do multi-winner districts (3-9 per district) with a ranked choice voting system that would greatly increase how well people are represented in Congress through proportional representation.

http://www.fairvote.org/proportional_representation

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#50

Post by newjersey »

danieltillett wrote: post #48
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 solution is to actually increase the number of politicians so that each district is small enough that you don't need money to get elected (you need districts of about 25,000 voters). The crazy thing is it doesn't even cost anymore money because as you increase the politicians you take away their staff. If you want to know more about this idea see [1]. 1. http://www.thirty-thousand.org

Smaller congressional districts could also help decrease the effect of gerrymandering.

This is interesting.

On the other hand, will we make ourselves even more vulnerable to "grassroots campaigns" like the tea party and lobbies like Alec?

I'm not an expert but there are mathematically and sociologically sound alternatives that are better than what you and I can prescribe. I'd prefer one of those.

Post reply on HN