Topic: Why isn't lobbying illegal? (Read 1520 times)

Because it's useful. We need lobbying because most politicians don't know anything about the subjects they're trying to regulate. We need lobbyists, unions, activists and all kind of pressure groups to tell them not to do this, or that, because it would hurt. That's democracy and justice. Many citizens, when they vote, are some kind of lobbyists, following the advices they heard on TV. The only system where there can't be any lobbying is anarchy

The laws are written by the people who get the money from those who don't want all this stuff works

Maybe not

As the OP I am from Germany. And from my perspective the true problem isn't the lobbying.

We have that too and it works quite similar: Lobbyists mostly are experts that try to convince politicians of their views in favor of certain groups. These groups are not just big companies but also ecology activist groups like the WWF or Green Peace for example or labor and trade unions. And lobbying actually is a necessary thing as politicians hardly have the time to listen to each and every single citizen they are responsible for. So it is good to form interest groups and send someone lobbying for the group to get your views and concerns forward to the politicians.

As some have stated in the US bribery/giving money as a lobbyist is strictly forbidden and watched over the same is true in Germany and here it always comes out and backfires badly for the politician and his party, actually in Germany doing something that is morally dubious (doesn't have to be even technically illegal) and being caught is one of the top 3 reasons that forces politicians to resign their positions and it happens quite fast after uncovering the deed in most cases. The most recent big case was our former president Christian Wulff. The pure suspicion that an entrepeneur friend of his family had covered expenses for some dinners and a vacation and had lend him the money for his house in trade for some favours was enough to force him to resign.

The big difference is - and that is where the true problem lies in the US in my view - that in the US anyone is allowed to directly support a particular candidate in a monetary way during election campaigns. And this GREATLY undermines the democratic system as it makes single politicians prone to bribery. In Germany donations can only be made to a party as a whole and the party is obliged to make the information about donations publicly available as part of the detailed report on their income, expenses and current assets which they have to deliver each year.

Additionally in Germany the expenses for election campaigns are for the most part covered by using federal money (so it's paid from the general tax income and not from the party's assets alone). Also the placing of campaign commercials is free in the public TV and Radio Stations. Same goes for the placing of placards.

I think for the US it'd be a huge leap ahead if donations directly to particular candidates would be forbidden and instead each candidate would get the same amount of money partly from the party's assets and partly from state/federal tax income in order to finance his/her campaign.

That's pretty much what lobbying and civics is nice comic

This was good. I should save it just because.

It really is something disgusting and should be made illegal. It truly is disgusting.

why should it be ... its just a suggestion.

Lobbying is just what the West calls bribing

because it benefits everybody for this to be a massively complex, grey area
Especially big business and politics

You know there is also lobbying in the EU right?

I agree. I think it has gotten that way over the years. The basic idea of lobbying makes sense, but the corrupting influence of money has turned it into a "pay for access" scheme.

Those with the most money speak loudest, not those who represent the most people. For example the NRA has about 5 million members. It takes $10 from each of them to counter the money of just 1 Michale Bloomberg. This year he is spending $50million dollars to popularize the idea that the way to make NYC a safe place is to take away the rights of people in rural Montana. It's insulting to normal people that we have to listen to to this guy just because he can buy political opinions. He is after all the guy who decided that because he doesn't like to look at fat people, you shouldn't be able to buy a large soda.
 

Lobbying is having a bunch of different interests provide money to politicians to get their idea across without it always succeeding
That money is then used to run for elections and the reward for lobbying is a cushy job with them after leaving politics
Bribing is similar but the money is pocketed

It's often the same with most other politicians. Being the leader of a western democracy usually lasts between 4-8 years, so they need a job once they leave. Just look at the jobs of what ex Prime Ministers and Presidents do after they finish. Tony Blair got nice paychecks for 'advisory' roles at JP Morgan and some other Swiss bank or something, not to mention having a load of other shady ties and income elsewhere. They're all crooks.

If you can lobby, you cannot make it illegal.  If you cannot lobby, there is no need for a law against it.  This is one of the more clear-cut of how law is revered as a magical solution or how law is affirmation of what is already real i.e. redundant i.e. unnecessary.

They are generally astute enough to do these deals without getting caught in anything illegal. For example, in Spain it is well known that the managing boards of most IBEX 35 (Spanish stock exchange) companies are filled with former ministers and senators, receiving very juicy salaries for doing virtually nothing (as they are mostly useless people who never had a job outside of politics). This is the way these big companies say "thank you" for approving laws, grants, etc in their favor while they were in the government.

Is this acceptable? Maybe not morally, but in strict legal terms, yes.

Except in this scenario they both essentially mean the same. Definitions are stretched so far but still within the scope of legality.

But this is it, it's bribery just under a different name. There's no shady meetings in carparks with exchanges of cash. These people all do it the legal way and are not stupid enough to explicitly state what they want in return, but when they make that campaign donation they sure as hell will want their money back at a later date. It's a you scratch my back I'll scratch yours situation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seDYqUFvYp0

The above video is from The Young Turks where they explain how Hilary Clinton was paid nearly half a million dollars for two short talks at Goldman Sachs. They insinuate this is essentially a bribe and if she gets in to power they'll be wanting a return on their investment.

to understand the difference between lobbying and bribing you just need to look these words in the dictionary and read the definition

Ah, but what is bribery? Explicitly saying "I will pay you $whatever if you will vote for X" certainly is, and that is illegal. But what about the wink, the nod, the agreement to hear someone talk, the big campaign donation, the implicit assumption of some form of quid pro quo even if neither party says so aloud? This is where the problem really lies.