When Lobbying was Illegal • Hacker News Board

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#51

Post by mtgx » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 8:39 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.

Easier in the sense that every citizen should be able to contribute more, and that can also be achieved through public funding.

But not easier in the sense that anyone can donate an infinite amount directly to the campaign. That just skews the system in the favor of a few donors (as it already has to a great degree).

We need the "money vote" to be "equalized" among people, just like the ballot vote is. One person shouldn't be able to donate $10 million, when 90% of the others can only donate up to $100 in a campaign. Then it just becomes inevitable that the candidate listens to the people donating $10 million, rather than those donating $100 (even if there are many more of them).

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#52

Post by sandGorgon » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 8:42 AM UTC

A lot of people seem to think that banning lobbying will make things better. But looking at campaign finance in India - where lobbying is illegal - the big problem is that all of this gets pushed underground. And what gets formed is this dirty nexus between criminals, politicians and businessmen. It gets worse because extortion is used as a measure by criminals to fund political campaigns (P.S. is this the reason for the tacit acceptance of the Yakuza in Japan..another place with no lobbies?).

Campaign finance needs to be more transparent... But the lobbying process in the US is already aspirational for me.

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#53

Post by danieltillett » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 8:42 AM UTC

mtgx wrote: post #49

danieltillett wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The problem with having large electorates is you still need a lot of money for advertising. By making the electorates small you basically can campaign by visiting and speaking to every person in the electorate. Get rid of the need for expensive advertising and you get rid of the need to raise money.

I do agree that there are much better voting systems then simple majorities - I like instant runoffs.

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#54

Post by mtgx » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 8:45 AM UTC

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…

I'd prefer if the lawmakers were only informed through public hearings. That's already how it happens in other countries where lobbying is illegal.

Public hearings are public, recorded, and there are voices from multiple camps speaking out about an issue, and given equal time to do it.

Lobbying happens in back rooms, and it's only one person talking at a time making their point. Registering lobbyists and saying when they talk to politicians won't help much if we also don't know what they're telling the politicians or if other voices don't get equal time to speak to those politicians.

When SOPA was about to pass, one politician ignorantly said that "the People" should just get their own lobbyists. Yeah, except the people can't afford to get a lobbyist for every issue. They can afford to participate in a public hearing.

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#55

Post by danieltillett » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 8:46 AM UTC

newjersey wrote: post #50

danieltillett wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are defiantly better voting systems than first past the post (I have a soft spot for instant run offs), but having smaller congressional districts should make the system more resistant to lobby groups. The campaign process would move to a more personal reputation based system where the representatives know most of the voters in their district. You might get extreme candidates in some districts, but they would be a small minority without much power at the congress level.

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#56

Post by newjersey » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 9:01 AM UTC

danieltillett wrote: post #55

newjersey wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are defiantly better voting systems than first past the post (I have a soft spot for instant run offs), but having smaller congressional districts should make the system more resistant to lobby groups. The campaign process would move to a more personal reputation based system where the representatives know most of the voters in their district. You might get extreme candidates in some districts, but they would b…

I like the idea. My fear is that a lot of the legislation may not directly affect people in my district but I'm supposed to vote on them as well.

Also I'm not very familiar with the work of committees. Would they grow larger? Would they become even more powerful and stay the same size?

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#57

Post by Alphasite_ » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 9:02 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…

Why not do what is done in the UK and put spending limits in place?

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#58

Post by wildmusings » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 9:06 AM UTC

joshka wrote: post #47

snowwrestler wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 perf…

But they'll never learn. The folly of those who think they can engineer a perfect society is boundless. "If only there was a rule..."

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#59

Post by entee » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 9:13 AM UTC

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

I like the idea. One thing though, this won't work unless people vote. A major reason the system doesn't work well today is because only the most extreme voters turn out for primaries. Even if you reduce gerrymandering, it's hard to eliminate entirely.

On the other hand, in smaller districts the electorate will be more likely to share opinions and interests so maybe that counteracts the problem?

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#60

Post by Grooted » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 9:14 AM UTC

newjersey wrote: post #50

danieltillett wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

so representative, just not of opinions you differ with ?