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

91–100 of 165 posts

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#91

Post by onetimePete »

I never got why it cant be legal AND combined with a tax. 25 % of all Voices go to the Economics, but they have to "vote" for this- in secrecy, meaning, they pay taxes, and the amount of taxes determinate the share they hold on there part of the power.

Any lobbying outside of this, is illegal and leads to a company being auctioned off to the public. When a force distorts your laws and warps society, one has to sap this force via constructs and channel it where it can be useful. And this has to be done, without this force being able to destroy the machinery that channels it. It has been done with the military. It has been done with nobility. It can be done with what shall come.

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#92

Post by jrjr »

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…

tax the large contributions severely. up to 90% over threshold values.

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#93

Post by edraferi »

nitrogen wrote: post #76
danieltillett wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You never lose by getting more votes - the nice thing about instant run offs is it simple (just rank) and it is close to the ideal outcome. It is not perfect, but it is not too bad. In regards stability it is better than proportional voting which tends to splinter the electorate. With instant run offs the candidate that is close to the consensus tends to win.

I'm drawing my conclusions from the visualizations here: http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/ (search for "nonmonotonicity"). Maybe I should have said public opinion. Shifting public opinion closer to your position can make you lose in IRV; I'm not sure if there's an actual vote count increase as well. From those visualizations and my reading elsewhere it looks like approval voting is the closest to a Voronoi-style partitioni…

That's a great article, thanks! I feel like I understand the tradeoffs between voting methods much better now.

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#95

Post by Overtonwindow »

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…

Can confirm. I was a lobbyist for several years in Washington. My job was to break through the bubble of Congress to educate members of Congress about my clients, a medium size nonprofit. The desperate crush for campaign donation requests was overwhelming.

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#96

Post by Overtonwindow »

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 disagree, the chances of one member of Congress pushing through legislation or raising an issue a Knouff for a constituent, is so overwhelmingly difficult, that it's pointless. And lobbyist gathers multiple members of Congress, educating and building a coalition, because that client elected official has to balance the request with all the other constituent request. It's simply not possible.

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#97

Post by Zach_the_Lizard »

alkonaut wrote: post #89
Zach_the_Lizard wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO part of the reason for the sacredness of the Constitution is that it is nearly impossible to change. 3/4 of states must approve a change, a very high bar. Maybe in the 1790s when there were comparatively few states and fears of tyranny were more reality based this was more reasonable, but with 50 states it's very unrealistic. The other reason it's sacred is that we Americans revere our founders to an absurd degre…

Holding the founding fathers in high regard isn't a bad thing - but holding an outdated constitution in high regard may be damaging. It should be hard to change a constitution. It's amazing how a lot of the US electorate finds the constitution so flawless, yet thinks "Washington" and the political establishment to be flawed - as if the political establishment is a product of itself and not of the legislation. I think…

I think that as it gets harder to change a constitution, judicial workarounds will become more frequent. This then causes more anger around not following the written law in the general population. Since the founders are Gods who wrote the Constitution, defying this law is heresy. Political evolution is slow until the next big court case.

At the other end of the spectrum it's so easy to change that your rights can be removed in any old vote. Political evolution occurs at a faster pace.

I'd like different levels of review for certain pieces of the puzzle. Editing the first amendment? 3/4 of all states seems fair. Giving DC voting rights? Maybe a lower bar is appropriate, but not quite an up or down vote level.

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#98

Post by Overtonwindow »

I haven't seen comments from a lobbyist yet. I was a lobbyist in Washington for many years, both for small companies and nonprofits. My job was to work with my clients elected official, to educate other members of Congress, raise the profile of the issue, and do all of the heavy lifting and work that the elected official can't or won't do.

There are 535 members of Congress. Unless it's the President, the chances of one elected official pushing through the needs of their constituents is extremely difficult.

Lobbyists fill the gap by educating congressional staff, piercing the bubble that congress lives in, and providing expertise on issues that the staff may not have. I have never given a campaign donation, I have never paid for anything for an elected official or their staff. It makes things difficult sometimes, because most members of Congress won't return your calls unless you've given at some point. But I believe that's the ethical way to work.

tl;dr: Lobbyists are paid educators and mouthpieces, for people, corporations, and organizations that can't afford to be in Washington all the time, to make sure that their issue is heard and considered by the widest audience possible.

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#99

Post by cm3 »

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…

And they all hate it if this video is any proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylomy1Aw9Hk

Why do countries like Germany make do without these huge fundraising campaigns, while a having a more balanced parliament, and the US is just Rep or Dem (binary) plus a huge show on a tour bus across the country, instead of doing real politics? I mean, what's the cultural difference in the US population that facilitates the circus?

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#100

Post by madiga »

Lobbying is bribery whether it's the lobbyists giving the money or congressional candidates asking for it. The fact that this practice is so apparent in our system is a shame and contradictory to the system itself.
Post reply on HN