Though it’s widely acknowledged that lobbyists have an unfair and quasi-illegal influence on government and policy, I’ve never really understood why anyone would…well, be influenced by them. Is it as simple as tons of bribes? Aren’t there laws in place that cap donations at a paltry $2K? It seems like there’s a real gap between lobbyists’ ability to pony up with bribes and gifts on the level that they’d have to in order to influence people that are already enjoying enormous salaries, benefits, and perks…that lobbyists would literally have to be coming through with gift villas, private jets, etc. in order to actually have any real influence. And by doing that, they’d be waving an enormous red flag that would attract attention to the corruption.
The whole thing seems like trying to slip Bill Gates a fifty in order to get some influence. What am I missing? Is their effect overstated, or is the bribery that big?
As I understand it there’s all sorts of ways around what campaign contributions there are. Especially since the Supreme Court has ruled that giving money qualifies as free speech. :rolleyes: So yes, it mostly amounts to politicians simply voting how they are paid to vote.
It’s not bribery, and it’s not about the money exactly. While lobbyists do provide campaign donations, their real influence is first, because they can mobilize people to support their cause, and second, because they have specialized knowledge about whatever issue the lobbying group is concerned about.
Slip you a $50 Senator Rhythm? That’s so crude. Let’s talk about this over dinner, my treat. Do you want a nice stake dinner, or maybe lobster? I know several five star restaurants. Anyway, you can decide on the way to the limo. Oh, by the way, I’m glad the money we poured into your campaign helped you win your election bid, and I hope you give us reason to donate to your campaign again. But enough political talk, let’s get in the limo and go to that restaurant.
Lobbyists can serve an important function that is good for all the people. They can represent blocks of people with a shared interest, and can help pull together both practical options for the politician they approach and useful organization and information sharing for the people whose interests they represent. A politician can be interested in what they have to say because they speak for many motivated voters, or because they offer those useful options.
Of course, this whole setup could easily be - and is - misused, for example to overrepresent the interests of corporations with deep pockets.
Der Trihs, why the eye roll? Promoting your political message or contributing to a politician who supports the kind of policy you want to see seems to me to be exactly the kind of thing the 1st amendment was intended to protect. I see how it leads to abuses too, but how do you take it away without amending the Constitution?
One idea : make campaign contributions illegal or at least capped very low, and make political campaigns publicly funded ( but to nowhere near the funding levels they have now ). As for amending the Constitution; the problem isn’t the Constitution, it’s the sheer corruption of equating giving money with free speech. A clear - and successful - attempt to make bribery legal.
The present system is antidemocratic, and undercuts the very idea of one person, one vote. Bill Gates and I may have only one vote each; but he has a LOT more money than I do. So in practical terms, he has much more of a say in how the country than do I, or of millions of common people combined. Politicians vote according to how they are paid, not how the people who elected them want; America is much closer to plutocracy than democracy.
Everybody pissing and moaning in this thread belongs to lobbying organizations - moreover, they would be pissed off if their organizations stopped lobbying.
Trade unions, industry organizations, veterans groups, other service groups, advocates for the elderly and disabled, environmentalists - all of them employ lobbyists to push legislation through. And the first thing these lobbyists do is to identify sympathetic lawmakers that will help them to put their ideas into action.
Now, it is true that you might not agree with everything these groups are doing. Moreover, other groups might be opposing legislation put forth by these groups or advocating different legislation. This is all terribly messy - but is par for the course in a democratic society.
Let me ask the question a different way. Ted Kennedy is known to be a strong union supporter. Do you think, in the absence of the absence of any campaign contributions, that Kennedy would continue to be a supporter of union causes?
I think the answer is obvious. Of course he would.
So when the AFL/CIO comes out against proposal a and for proposal b, Ted Kennedy places value on their views because he agrees with the principles of organized labor. The same thing can be said of how Tom Delay would think of the NRA’s views on some gun issue, or how a West Virginia senator thinks of the coal industry, or how a California congressman thinks of the aerospace industry.
In short, I think a significant part of the relationship is self perpetuating based on one’s own political views and prejudices, no different than many liberals here like to cite commondreams.org to validate their views, or conservatives here like to cite the Heritage Foundation, and so on.
This idea that the rich control everything is silly. Were that true there wouldn’t be a single Democrat in elected office in the whole country. Unions would be illegal, there would be no labor laws, welfare, etc.
What makes you think that Democrats are anti-business? They are almost as much a bunch of right wing corporate toadies as the Republicans.
Unions barely exist, and continue to do so at all largely because they too have money if not as much. Labor laws and welfare have been slashed as the corporations have grown in power.