Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s really not the same thing. Bribery undermines the rule of law. Lobbying helps form it. The difference may seem subtle but it isn’t. If you believe US lawmakers are taking bribes please provide evidence because that is a Big Deal. If you believe lobbying is harmful to our democratic processes please present that argument directly.
> If you believe lobbying is harmful to our democratic processes please present that argument directly. Not OP, but it is easy to understand how lobbying is too close to a quid pro quo scheme. If a politician receives donations in any form, in order to push for legislation that may benefit the donors, how is it any different from bribery?
Subtlety matters. Calling lobbying bribery is apathy, which is uninteresting. Even worse, it’s ineffective.
> If a politician receives donations in any form, in order to push for legislation that may benefit the donors, how is it any different from bribery?
So, should I donate to a mayoral campaign that aligns with my beliefs? Is all money in politics evil, or is it just a matter of degrees? What if that mayoral candidate is a “political outsider” who relies on “grassroots support” to enable them to quit their job and focus on the campaign?
I’m an expert in my field. Should I inform my elected leaders on the nuances of that field when they write legislation that relates to it? Or should laws only be written by the ignorant? How ignorant should they be?
Trade is a quid pro quo scheme. Pretending all exchanges of value are the same is, again, uninteresting. How can such a position be engaged? And to what end?
Where’s the line between bribery and democracy?
It’s not easy to draw. Calling lobbying bribery is an apathetic oversimplification. It’s uninteresting and isn’t a position that can be engaged constructively.