Lobbyists rewrote Washington state’s privacy law • Hacker News Board

Re: Lobbyists rewrote Washington state’s privacy law

#21

Post by rayiner » Sat, Apr 27, 2019, 3:28 PM UTC

JohnFen wrote: post #18

rayiner wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lobbying isn’t “fund[ing] the campaigns of politicians.” It’s about making PowerPoint presentations to politicians’ staff.

And making large donations to reelection campaigns.

That’s just not true. To the extent lobbyists make donations, they do so in their individual, rather than representative capacity. Look at open secrets’ list of top lobbyists: https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=lb&showY.... They’re not making “large donations.” Some of the top lobbyists contributed nothing. Most a few hundred to a few thousand, which is not out of line for DC residents in that economic stratum generally. In a typical election year, donations by federal registered lobbyists amount to $10-20 million total: https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/01/political-donations.... In 2016, lobbyists contributed just $26 million of the $6,500 million spent in the elections. Lobbyist contributions account for a tiny portion of re-election campaigns, wholly at odds with the idea that money is what gives lobbyists influence.

Re: Lobbyists rewrote Washington state’s privacy law

#22

Post by colejohnson66 » Sat, Apr 27, 2019, 3:43 PM UTC

SaltyBackendGuy wrote: post #20

blub wrote: post #2

"In the final draft circulated among local lawmakers last week, which was obtained by POLITICO, Ryan Harkins, a senior public policy director at Microsoft, also wrote notes in the margins, often chiding lawmakers for their legislative approach and deleting sections of the bill that he viewed as unsatisfactory." Lobbying is pure corruption. No individual citizens or even organizations have such power to strike paragra…

> Lobbying is pure corruption I never understood why more people don't see it this way. You literally pay money to get X bill passed. If that's not corruption I don't know what is.

Because no one wants to think that “their side” is corrupt. It’s always the other side.

Re: Lobbyists rewrote Washington state’s privacy law

#23

Post by mikeash » Sat, Apr 27, 2019, 4:15 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #3

blub wrote: post #2

"In the final draft circulated among local lawmakers last week, which was obtained by POLITICO, Ryan Harkins, a senior public policy director at Microsoft, also wrote notes in the margins, often chiding lawmakers for their legislative approach and deleting sections of the bill that he viewed as unsatisfactory." Lobbying is pure corruption. No individual citizens or even organizations have such power to strike paragra…

That’s a perverted view of the “public interest” as being diametrically opposed to corporate interests. Microsoft is a major employer in Washington. Not to mention, it’s one of the nation’s major innovators, making products everyone uses. It’s views on proposed legislation are extremely relevant and helpful and it’s in the “public interest” for legislators to consider them. Note that some of the provisions in questio…

Mocrosoft’s views on legislation are already throughly represented through the voting power of its shareholders, employees, and anyone else who is affected by them. Are you saying they should have unequal influence beyond that?

Re: Lobbyists rewrote Washington state’s privacy law

#24

Post by rayiner » Sat, Apr 27, 2019, 4:32 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #23

rayiner wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a perverted view of the “public interest” as being diametrically opposed to corporate interests. Microsoft is a major employer in Washington. Not to mention, it’s one of the nation’s major innovators, making products everyone uses. It’s views on proposed legislation are extremely relevant and helpful and it’s in the “public interest” for legislators to consider them. Note that some of the provisions in questio…

Mocrosoft’s views on legislation are already throughly represented through the voting power of its shareholders, employees, and anyone else who is affected by them. Are you saying they should have unequal influence beyond that?

The right to participate in a democracy isn’t limited to voting. The first amendment guarantees the right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights contains a similar provision. If the government proposes to build a highway through my town, I can go meet with a legislator and express my disapproval. (And people do stuff like that all the time.) I’m not limited to just voting after the fact.

To the extent that a legislator might take account of Microsoft’s view more than that of a random citizen, it’s because Microsoft represents a really big and economically important group of citizens. At the end of the day, the number one mandate for any legislator is jobs. (“It’s the economy, stupid!”). Job losses are one of the few things over which Americans will vote incumbents out of office. Things that are bad for Microsoft are bad for the citizens of Washington. Microsoft not only has the right to make its views known (as a proxy for its shareholders, employees, and officers) but it’s entirely proper for Washington legislators to account for those views.

Re: Lobbyists rewrote Washington state’s privacy law

#25

Post by sneak » Sat, Apr 27, 2019, 4:36 PM UTC

saagarjha wrote: post #4

rayiner wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a perverted view of the “public interest” as being diametrically opposed to corporate interests. Microsoft is a major employer in Washington. Not to mention, it’s one of the nation’s major innovators, making products everyone uses. It’s views on proposed legislation are extremely relevant and helpful and it’s in the “public interest” for legislators to consider them. Note that some of the provisions in questio…

It's in the public interest for legislators to consider those views alongside the views of the general public. Unfortunately the latter does not have the resources to lobby as effectively as Microsoft does…

Let’s also remember that much of the general public (at least in the US) are MSFT shareholders, either directly or via index funds, probably as a result of retirement accounts. They aren’t mutually exclusive.

Re: Lobbyists rewrote Washington state’s privacy law

#26

Post by mikeash » Sat, Apr 27, 2019, 4:39 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #24

mikeash wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mocrosoft’s views on legislation are already throughly represented through the voting power of its shareholders, employees, and anyone else who is affected by them. Are you saying they should have unequal influence beyond that?

The right to participate in a democracy isn’t limited to voting. The first amendment guarantees the right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights contains a similar provision. If the government proposes to build a highway through my town, I can go meet with a legislator and express my disapproval. (And people do stuff like that all the time.) I’m not limited to j…

Legislators give Microsoft more weight just because of jobs? You don’t think campaign contributions play a part?

And are you implying that Microsoft represents its employees when you say it represents a large and economically important group of citizens? Because it definitely does not. It pays its employees. It represents its shareholders.

Re: Lobbyists rewrote Washington state’s privacy law

#27

Post by rayiner » Sat, Apr 27, 2019, 4:42 PM UTC

JohnFen wrote: post #19

rayiner wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations give people goods and services in exchange. (And almost everyone gets the money in the first place by working for a corporation.) Their interests are highly aligned.

> Their interests are highly aligned. It sure doesn't seem like it to me. Corporations are about maximizing profits, which in part means soaking people to greatest degree possible. It would be easier to support the notion that their interests are "highly aligned" if corporations had an incentive to make a reasonable profit rather than the most profit they can get away with.

Corporations make a profit by giving people what the people want. Apple makes tons of profits because it innovates and gives people products they love. Same thing for Walmart and Amazon. (It turns out that what people love is cheap crap delivered instantly, but that is what it is.) Same thing for Exxon. (People love cheap gas so they can drive their SUVs to Chipotle and Exxon delivers that.)

It’s entities that don’t have s profit motive that tend to be the least customer focused. If you rely on the New York or DC subway, it will become quite apparent that those organizations are focused on maximizing value for their respective labor unions rather than for their customers. Same thing for schools. (There is a reason people send their kids to private school even in places where the public schools are good.)

Re: Lobbyists rewrote Washington state’s privacy law

#28

Post by rbritton » Sat, Apr 27, 2019, 4:49 PM UTC

The text and history of the bill is available here [0]. It does not appear to have made much progress in the House, so they may run out of time to pass it at all.

[0]: https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5376&Year=2019

Re: Lobbyists rewrote Washington state’s privacy law

#29

Post by skrebbel » Sat, Apr 27, 2019, 4:53 PM UTC

SaltyBackendGuy wrote: post #20

blub wrote: post #2

"In the final draft circulated among local lawmakers last week, which was obtained by POLITICO, Ryan Harkins, a senior public policy director at Microsoft, also wrote notes in the margins, often chiding lawmakers for their legislative approach and deleting sections of the bill that he viewed as unsatisfactory." Lobbying is pure corruption. No individual citizens or even organizations have such power to strike paragra…

> Lobbying is pure corruption I never understood why more people don't see it this way. You literally pay money to get X bill passed. If that's not corruption I don't know what is.

I think much of Europe is looking at the US that way. It's mind blowing, especially how much it happens in the open. We have lots of corruption too, but it's mostly hidden and if it gets out it's a scandal. In the US it appears to be just normal matter of fact stuff. Company funds politician; politician gets elected; favourable law gets passed; nobody bats an eye.

Re: Lobbyists rewrote Washington state’s privacy law

#30

Post by rayiner » Sat, Apr 27, 2019, 4:55 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #26

rayiner wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The right to participate in a democracy isn’t limited to voting. The first amendment guarantees the right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights contains a similar provision. If the government proposes to build a highway through my town, I can go meet with a legislator and express my disapproval. (And people do stuff like that all the time.) I’m not limited to j…

Legislators give Microsoft more weight just because of jobs? You don’t think campaign contributions play a part? And are you implying that Microsoft represents its employees when you say it represents a large and economically important group of citizens? Because it definitely does not. It pays its employees. It represents its shareholders.

I don’t think campaign contributions play a significant part. In Washington state corporations are limited to donating $1,900 per candidate (and corporate donations are illegal at the federal level). So there just isn’t very much money in play. Bedsides that, I have some exposure to lobbying at the state level. (When I was at Northwestern, our legal clinic lobbies on environmental issues.) it was common knowledge that the legislators took what Excelon has to say very seriously. But if you look at the records, Excelon employees just don’t donate very much money. (And again, corporate donations are banned.) I don’t have state records, but it’s just a couple of million dollars nationwide at the federal level, including Excelon’s PAC. This is a company with $33 billion in revenue and 35,000 employees. It’s chump change compared the to influence they have. The influence is because Excelon employees tons of people in rural Illinois, where a disproportionate share of the voting power happens to be.