You're conflating lobbying and campaign finance. I know you know the difference, which means you are doing it on purpose, which I find disappointing.
One of the biggest problems in discussing lobbying is that members of the press habitually and intentionally confuse their readers about what is and is not lobbying.
To go back to my ANWR example--I'd be interested to know how many of the attendees at that Obama dinner (or any $64k/plate dinner) were registered lobbyists for the Sierra Club.
edit to add: If we want more citizen participation in government, it has to start with an accurate understanding of how they can participate. Framing lobbying as something that necessitates $64,000 donations does not help people understand how they can support nonprofits (like for example the Sierra Club or ACLU) that engage in lobbying but not huge campaign donations.
Seconding this. I wish more people understood that "lobbying" is largely making a case to congressional staff, not another word for bribery.
And half the problem is that we need more lobbying, not less.
Donor access is an issue, but I think the larger problem that no one knows how to address with campaign finance laws of any kind is that someone with enough money can simply use that money to hire an army of persuasive people, much as you described.
I do not think the problem is them talking. I think the problem is them giving money indirectly through campaign contributions.
One statistic the article states is that some organisation spent about 700,000 dollars in lobbying and 2.5 millions in campaign contributions. I only wonder which was more effective.
Actual lobbying is such a small part of the money that goes to politicians that it's a red herring.
The source of corruption is through PACs that support candidates without the candidates consent or guidance (either ostensibly or actually).
You can either give a candidate a few thousand dollars directly or you can spend an unlimited amount of money telling people how great you think the candidate is. Only the former is lobbying.
Why is a representative going to listen to our lobbyist over the MPAA's lobbyist? We can raise enough money to hire someone to work in Washington for us, but I somehow doubt we can consistently raise enough money to make matching campaign contributions so that our lobbyist is taken seriously. Even if we could, it feels fundamentally wrong that we need a self-imposed tax on citizens for their representatives to represent them. Attacking the incentive structure of the system by not having campaigns financed by corporations and interest groups is probably a better place to invest our effort.
What really shocked me most about lobbying and campaign contributions is how little money companies can spend to effect radical change. I always thought there were millions of dollars being given to campaign funds. But it’s often just a few thousand or tens of thousands.
I don't think anyone's doubting the $3/month figure - most people could spare that. It's the "getting 100% of registered voters to participate" part that has many people thinking you're overreaching slightly.
For the most part, the people that currently donate to political organizations will keep donating to those same organizations - they're happy with them, they voluntarily chose to donate to them, and they will need a lot of convincing to move their donor-dollars. So you're going to need to get people who don't currently donate money for political purposes to join your effort, and have their money used to pay for corporate lobbyists. How?
Freespeech zone: nope, not sure how that's relevant.
Radio: any type of fundraising that you believe would work, or try to get free air time on local broadcasts or regional programs. It helps if you have an interesting topic to talk about.
Trees: If it gets your message across, yes. It would be a good news story.
"My state and national representative will not care one iota for my opinion if it isn't attached to either A: a large check or B: a large constituency."
Have you ever tried? This is the kind of statement made by someone who has nothing but second- and third-hand knowledge of the process, usually garnered through biased news organizations (they all are).
My experience has been that very few citizens are involved in politics as lobbying goes. I'm convinced that if every private citizen got as involved in the actual process as they are in complaining, actual, paid lobbyists would be driven out of business. They only speak for us because we do not speak for ourselves.
I have successfully lobbied my state representative. I wrote to the local paper, I arranged an interview with compelling stories for local television. I made a nuisance out of myself until I got airtime on local radio stations. I made such a stink that my federal representatives even called me to discuss the issue and ask for my thoughts (albeit not too much in depth). I spoke for myself, because the people who were doing it full time didn't have my best interests at heart.
But, I felt passionately about the topic. You're right, it's easier with money, but you can also spend time and energy for nearly as good of a return. Not everyone has these things to spare, and I appreciate that (I was lobbying against cuts to low-income early childhood in my area; the exact kind of people who have neither time, money, nor energy to fight the fight). But, if it's something you truly feel is right, just, and good, you'll figure out how to make it happen.
Finally, to bring it back around to the original argument; it may be that several government entities are abusive. It is probably true that a majority are corrupt. But to say that ---all-- government is abusive or corrupt is just ridiculous. Those type of arguments add nothing to the conversation other than noise.
Dude, the amount of money that politicians get in campaign contributions is tiny compared to the amount of money that is spent on lobbyists. The problem is that we have this class of people who are personable, who are well informed, have spent years creating relationships with other people in Washington, and who are very experienced at providing simple, one-sided explanations of the issues to congress-critters.
If campaign contributions were entirely banned I doubt it would make much difference, because legislators are too busy to pull information on every topic that they feel they need to Do Something about, and its the people with lobbyists who succeed in pushing out the (fraction of the) information needed.
What you've stated is true by the technical definition of the term, but lobbying in the _common vernacular_ of the United States is synonymous with paying money. You can throw dictionary definitions around all you want but it doesn't change how it's commonly used.
The same issue comes up with the word theory to scientists vs it's meaning in the common vernacular.
As to your second part about corporate entities being prohibited from donating money to campaigns, excuse me while I set up a PAC to donate funds to a senator who is aware that I donate to the PAC and that I would really appreciate it if I got a tax break.
What the law intends != what is actually happening
Well, everyone always talks about what really motivates the legislative branch (campaign funding), but I've never seen civil libertarian types try to start a non-profit or super-PAC to lobby congress. We know this way of influence is proven to work, and to work quite well. Why is there no special interest organization that is in those fundraising dinners, talking to the legislators, and trying to get the various committees to influence laws we care about?
Letters and phone calls work, but hundreds/thousands of people willing to donate money to candidates that support particular causes works even better. That's how lobbying works. It's not even completely unethical, really. A spokesperson just buys their way in to fundraisers and says, "Hey, our group really cares about X. Here is why. Oh BTW, we might have a bunch of voters in your district who are passionate about X and would want to contribute to a person's campaign if they also cared about X. Do you care about X?"
It sounds like the public need to wake up to the reality that politics are driven by money, and instead of using a voting system, we should just crowdfund sponsor our candidates and lock them into contracts.
The longer we keep our head in the sand instead of facing reality, the more delusional we get.
If we, as the public, are unwilling to actually pay our candidates the way that lobbyists are, and if we are unwilling to change the laws that allow lobbyists to continue influencing politicians in this manner, then we effectively have no representation.
I don't mean to suggest that at all -- I think there are a variety of things we could try to mitigate some of the problems associated with campaign finance.
What I'm trying to communicate is mostly that when it comes to "buying influence", the problem is a lot deeper than any access/influence purchased via donor-driven fundraising. It's actually inherent in any arrangement where money can be used to hire people to lobby on an employer's behalf. And it's particularly unbalanced when most people don't lobby on a volunteer basis.
> But campaign donations by corporate interests and lobbying _are_ essentially legal bribery.
Campaign contributions and lobbying are not at all the same thing.
First, "Corporate interests" are prohibited from making campaign contributions.
Secondly, lobbying is simply the process of petitioning elected officials to persuade them to advocate your causes. That's not unique to the US; every democracy has a mechanism for that process.
The problem is those lobbying money keep rising up, too. From what I hear Obama plans on raising $1 billion for his re-election campaign. That means in the future other candidates will try to raise a lot more, too, and so on.
This is bad. I think we need to limit how much any single individual or entity can pay for a campaign. Elections shouldn't be decided by who raises the most money, and according to a statistic 98% of those who won elections also had the most money. I really believe that needs to end somehow.
Unlimited donations from single individuals/companies just means that much more power will held by those single individuals and companies, and you can bet that the first thing the politicians will do when they get in office is to pay back thoe money.
I actually see the value of lobbying, and think that would be an excellent idea. But lobbying has such a nasty connotation, I doubt it would pad the ego of a philanthropist (call me a cynic, but I'd wager 90% of philanthropy is just a way for people to garner attention and praise).
I don't think lobbying would be nearly as bad if a) we had publicly funded elections, which takes away the incentive for politicians to be beholden to the interests of donors, and b) we had a mechanism (possibly through a branch of judicial review?) to repeal or amend laws that don't achieve their stated goals.
One of the biggest problems in discussing lobbying is that members of the press habitually and intentionally confuse their readers about what is and is not lobbying.
To go back to my ANWR example--I'd be interested to know how many of the attendees at that Obama dinner (or any $64k/plate dinner) were registered lobbyists for the Sierra Club.
edit to add: If we want more citizen participation in government, it has to start with an accurate understanding of how they can participate. Framing lobbying as something that necessitates $64,000 donations does not help people understand how they can support nonprofits (like for example the Sierra Club or ACLU) that engage in lobbying but not huge campaign donations.
reply