>Groups of people or interest groups should be allowed to bring their case to legislators to try to convince them.
Why should YOU or you and your friends be allowed to lobby MY congressman if you're not in a district he or she represents? They're in office to represent their constituents, not whoever has the most money to throw their way. Lobbying should be limited to constituents only, not include gifts, donations, or further benefits post-office.
> people and corporations both must be able to speak to their representatives
A lack of lobbying wouldn't prevent anyone from speaking to their representatives. The negative connotations around lobbying come from things like:
- Large campaign contributors getting more attention than constituents (even if their industry isn't in the state; See Orrin Hatch and Hollywood for an example).
- Lobbyists being people that know the politicians, and therefore are being paid to use that trust.
>> Lobbying is simply the practice of petitioning the government to adopt a given policy.
Adopting a policy is different from having them mandate what people buy.
Hey, have people buy epipens and keep one at the school for each kid with allergies. Then later we will raise our prices 1000 percent. That's not influencing policy, its fucking people all the way to the bank - with government assistance.
The practice of lobbying provides a forum for the resolution of conflicts among often diverse and competing points of view; provides information, analysis, and opinion to legislators and government leaders to allow for informed and balanced decision making; and creates a system of checks and balances that allows for competition among interest groups, keeping any one group from attaining a permanent position of power. Lobbyists can help the legislative process work more effectively by providing lawmakers with reliable data and accurate assessments of a bill's effect.
<<<
An excerpt from the legal definition of lobbying. My own take is a bit lacking on the "resolution of conflicts" portion, but still in line with the intended outcome - informing politicians on matters they wouldn't otherwise understand. That said, its definitely not as pristine an occupation as we would hope, with all the people involved in it.
It's worth noting that lobbiests can and do also work at levels incapable of affording expert panels or independent investigations, such as the city and state levels.
Congress shall make no law [...] abridging [...] the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
This is the core idea, but obviously the concept of "lobbying" embodies a lot more than just assembly and petitioning in current usage.
I do think it is important to realize that we do have a right to advocate for change. Laws that regulate or curtain "lobbying" need to be carefully crafted to avoid infringing on these rights.
>Lawmakers could seek out experts to ask for advice, rather than the experts coming to them
I guess they could spend all their time researching random problems, but lobbying helps vet important issues. They are representing a constituency, after all.
And, in reality, good politicians do do their own research, and many even write bills and promote policy that they genuinely believe in (even when it agrees with lobbyists).
>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?
Because in many situations there's a very fine line between "lobbying" and "making decisions based on the will expressed by constituents". An organized group of concerned citizens is a lobby.
When it comes to outright bribing politicians, that's easy (and illegal). But there's a ton of grey-area in there. In fact, I'm not sure how you even could remove lobbying from the political process.
Those cost and are not very effective. Lobbyists create paper trails and must follow rules. A more efficient strategy is to hire the friends and family members of influential people.
> let the persons in need organize and spread the knowledge
That's lobbying. In todays world, lobbying is a dispicable act, at least if you are into science or if you like stuff that has been proven by scientific measures. In today's world, lobbying VETOes science.
> Furthermore with lobbying the activity is largely in public
Disregarding popular movements that's not how lobbying works at all. No private special interest group is going to be advertising the many ways in which it is trying to influence a person holding public office. You subscribe to a service providing you with personal data, you attend the same events, you help them. For example by commenting on or even drafting legislative texts.
“Lobbying” is literally any effort a person or group makes to influence a government decision-maker.
reply