241–250 of 251 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Foreign governments have embassies and diplomatic staff for precisely this kind of work . Why do they need more than that ?
Diplomatic staff is very limited in number (because they have immunity, so the host country does not want it inflated too much). These kinds of jobs do not require immunity and can be done by non-diplomats.
Every other country in the world where lobbying is not legal, all of this is done with government staff, this usecase cannot be a justification for having lobbying when everyone else gets along fine without it
when a foreign government employs a third party firm it looks like it wants plausible deniability , or that they are trying purchase access and influence that these firms have as Kushner was selling .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and I've read about the cases described by your link, however I haven't read anything about the case in the grandparent comment. I'd call it bullshit, but that would be impolite.
If you don't have exposure to this kind of thing, all you need is a little imagination. Or try Kofi Annan [1] [1] https://projekte.sueddeutsche.de/paradisepapers/politik/kofi...
But you are right, imagination is the only source of the statements like the one about Moscow and IKEA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Airbus is everything that is wrong with the corporate world." But it makes planes that don't crash like Boeings.
http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm Not exactly...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You haven’t explained why lobbyists are necessary, or even a good thing. Why is a system allowing lobbying better than one that bans it in favor of politicians independently making decisions based on the will expressed by and likely benefits for their constituents? And please don’t say it’s hard for them to understand all the issues. That’s literally their job and the reason they have a staff.
If it was banned, it would still happen, but not in the public eye. A relative of a friend was a politician. He used lobbyists indirectly to work on issues. Say he needed help understanding a school textbook issue. He would call up his oil lobbyist, whose job it was to make him happy. It was definitely not his job to piss him off. He would quickly get a report on the textbook issue, probably written by the expert in…
This is kind of a weak argument, because this goes for literally every law. Even though this is true, as a society you can still make the decision that it isn't okay. By making it as okay as it is right now, you're saying that it's just a fact of life and we need to accept it because of that. Murder is a fact of life too (as in: it happens regardless of it being illegal), but that doesn't mean we need to make it legal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes it is. It's a very natural thing for someone who has status to think that they should be able to cash in on that power. Everyone with responsibility is looking at a pile of money every day, all they have to do is reach out and grab some. And after all, they 'work hard' so why shouldn't they? (Is the internal logic they might use). Most businesses are commodities, it's hard to compete on price or anything else. It…
Ok, you disagree. But after writing "Yes it is", none of your following 8 sentences seem to support your opinion. If someone is prosecuted and assumed guilty of a crime, then it proves that the law does not prevent the activity 100%. However, it also seems virtually certain that it prevents some of the crime. If someone claimed that because people are arrested for murder all the time, the law(s) against murder have n…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You haven’t explained why lobbyists are necessary, or even a good thing. Why is a system allowing lobbying better than one that bans it in favor of politicians independently making decisions based on the will expressed by and likely benefits for their constituents? And please don’t say it’s hard for them to understand all the issues. That’s literally their job and the reason they have a staff.
If it was banned, it would still happen, but not in the public eye. A relative of a friend was a politician. He used lobbyists indirectly to work on issues. Say he needed help understanding a school textbook issue. He would call up his oil lobbyist, whose job it was to make him happy. It was definitely not his job to piss him off. He would quickly get a report on the textbook issue, probably written by the expert in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You haven’t explained why lobbyists are necessary, or even a good thing. Why is a system allowing lobbying better than one that bans it in favor of politicians independently making decisions based on the will expressed by and likely benefits for their constituents? And please don’t say it’s hard for them to understand all the issues. That’s literally their job and the reason they have a staff.
If it was banned, it would still happen, but not in the public eye. A relative of a friend was a politician. He used lobbyists indirectly to work on issues. Say he needed help understanding a school textbook issue. He would call up his oil lobbyist, whose job it was to make him happy. It was definitely not his job to piss him off. He would quickly get a report on the textbook issue, probably written by the expert in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While lobbyists have sometimes bribed officials through gifts and perks, which is illegal, lobbying is not bribery. Say you're interesting in promoting renewable energy. You and like minded people put together resources to promote renewable energy to politicians, explaining its benefits. This activity is lobbying for renewable energy.
But how many politicians end up getting huge salaries from these so-called 'think tanks' after they finish their terms? How is this different from receiving a 'gift'? It's extremely reductive to even mention gifts as bribery at this stage because we are far beyond that primitive level of interaction. This unspoken agreement between politicians and think thanks is exactly the same as bribery. They're bribing politicia…