# Why would/do legislators listen to lobbyists? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 24, 2009, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-do-legislators-listen-to-lobbyists/507536 "2009-08-24T19:09:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2009, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-do-legislators-listen-to-lobbyists/507536/41 "2009-08-30T22:44:53Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > my point is that if you deny corporations an equivalent amount of legal standing as a normal person, then you can issue laws proscribing their ability to petition the government through lobbyists and not risk running afoul of the constitution. Corporate “personhood” is a Frankenstein built of human parts cobbled together by [Supreme Court rulings](http://www.ratical.org/corporations/ToPRaP.html) over the past 125 years. As late as 1877 corporations were closely regulated by the states. > [@](#): > > 1877 Munn v. Illinois (1877) > Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment cannot be used to protect corporations from state law. They did not actually rule on personhood. For the next 12 years the court avoided ruling on the idea of “personhood” until in 1889 > [@](#): > > 1889 Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Co. v. Beckwith (1889) > Supreme Court rules a corporation is a “person” for both due process and equal protection. > > 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890) > Sections 7 & 8 define corporations as persons How ironic is the widely held notion that the SAA was a bastion for the people against the abuses of Capital. It created, by statute, the 800 lb corporate gorilla. It was all downhill from here. > [@](#): > > 1893 Noble v. Union River Logging R. Co. (1893) > For the first time corporations have claim to the Bill of Rights. The 5th Amendment says: “. . . nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” > > 1905 Lochner v. New York (1905) > “Lochner” became shorthand for using the Constitution to invalidate government regulation of the corporation. It embodies the doctrine of “substantive due process.” From 1905 until the mid 1930s the Court invalidated approximately 200 economic regulations, usually under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. For the past 100 years, the court has “clarified” the “human rights” of corporations. See the cite above. One of my favorites is > [@](#): > > 1976 Buckley v. Valeo (1976) > The Supreme Court rules that political money is equivalent to speech. This ruling expanded the First Amendment’s protections to include financial contributions to candidates or parties. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2009, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-do-legislators-listen-to-lobbyists/507536/42 "2009-08-30T22:50:20Z")
> [@Transistor\_Rhythm](#): > > 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. What is illegal about promoting a point of view with the law makers? One man’s lobbyist is another’s advocate. As for why law makers’ would be influenced, much lobbying is a matter of providing convincing arguments and information in an easily usable format to the law makers. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2009, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-do-legislators-listen-to-lobbyists/507536/43 "2009-08-30T23:55:08Z")
> [@adhay](#): > > For the past 100 years, the court has “clarified” the “human rights” of corporations. See the cite above. One of my favorites is [Buckley v Valeo] Did you ever read the decision? It’s a well reasoned decision, and I think it makes sense. The law it overturned said > [@](#): > > “[n]o person may make any expenditure . . . relative to a clearly identified candidate during a calendar year which, when added to all other expenditures made by such person during the year advocating the election or defeat of such candidate, exceeds $1,000.” The actual decision isn’t so much “spending money is free speech”. It’s “The government can’t limit free expression just because it will cost money to express a viewpoint.” To use an example the court pointed out, under the law, I couldn’t take out a full page ad in the New York Times saying “I support Candidate X”, because the cost of a full page ad in the New York Times would be more than $1000. The parts of the law overturned also said that a candidate couldn’t spend more than a certain amount of his own money in a campaign, and also set maximum amounts a candidate could spend total in a race. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2009, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-do-legislators-listen-to-lobbyists/507536/44 "2009-08-31T00:35:04Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Yes you do, thankfully. > > Corporations are made up of people. Nevertheless, they are not people. They should not have the rights of a person. It was a scam when they were given the right and it is a scam now. The health bill has attracted only 5000 lobbyist working for corporations who make money with the present medical care system. They have the money to defend it and can put huge pressure on the politicians. That subverts the process in favor of the rich and powerful. ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2009, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-do-legislators-listen-to-lobbyists/507536/45 "2009-08-31T01:25:02Z")
Change it easily. You can spend as much money as you want to influence policy, **OR** you can receive money from the government for contracts, goods, services, or other considerations. Choice. Tris ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2009, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-do-legislators-listen-to-lobbyists/507536/46 "2009-08-31T03:43:35Z")
You are a senator. Your secretary says “Joe Smith a voter wants to talk to you” then says a lobbyist representing big PHARMA is here to see you". Who gets in? When you consider that he can move money for your campaign in your direction, it is an easy choice. Our system has gone wrong. Our politicians spend nearly all their time raising campaign money. They need the lobbyists money in order to win. We need to make campaigns shorter, cheaper and use public financing. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2009, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-do-legislators-listen-to-lobbyists/507536/47 "2009-08-31T03:54:07Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > You are a senator. Your secretary says “Joe Smith a voter wants to talk to you” then says a lobbyist representing big PHARMA is here to see you". Who gets in? When you consider that he can move money for your campaign in your direction, it is an easy choice. Yes, it is. You meet with your voter, and send your Health Care LA to meet with the pharmaceutical rep. After your five minutes with the voter in the front office are up (“Hey? How are you doing? You enjoying your visit to DC? You guys want the intern to give you a Capitol tour? It was great you could stop by. Tell all your friends to vote for me! Just kidding! But seriously, tell them all to vote for me.”), you then go into the meeting with the pharm rep and your LA, even if it’s just to show the colors and say hi. Then after he leaves, your LA briefs you on what they talked about. Then you run off because you’re running late for a committee meeting. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2009, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-do-legislators-listen-to-lobbyists/507536/48 "2009-08-31T03:55:39Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > You are a senator. Your secretary says “Joe Smith a voter wants to talk to you” then says a lobbyist representing big PHARMA is here to see you". Who gets in? When you consider that he can move money for your campaign in your direction, it is an easy choice. > Our system has gone wrong. Our politicians spend nearly all their time raising campaign money. They need the lobbyists money in order to win. > We need to make campaigns shorter, cheaper and use public financing. Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that lobbyists couldn’t raise a dime of money for politicians. I’d bet that the overwhelming majority of politicians would still meet with the PhRMA rep. Because they represent companies that make very serious decisions about availability of curative medicines. Yes, I think that’s a much more important meeting than Joe Smith’s visit to Washington. Odds are that Joe Smith would see that as a more important meeting, too. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2009, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-do-legislators-listen-to-lobbyists/507536/49 "2009-08-31T04:13:15Z")
Oh, I forgot to add why you do it that way. First off, the Pharmaceutical rep. (and you should probably fire your secretary if he or she calls him “a lobbyist representing big PHARMA”) probably really doesn’t want to see you, anyway. Oh, he’d be happy if you could, but the lobbyist knows he doesn’t usually get to meet with senators. Besides, he’s probably coming to talk about a specific bill or amendment, and your health care legislative assistant knows more about that stuff than you do. He’ll know the relevant questions to ask, what to pay attention to, he’ll just understand the whole thing better. As for your constituent, you probably can blow him off if you want to (and if you’re too busy, you probably will.) After all, most constituents are so overawed by being on Capitol Hill and by your position as Senator, he’ll understand. But if you do manage to meet with him, he’ll be really impressed with you. He’ll be thrilled, and he’ll go home, and he’ll brag to all his friends and family, “When I was in DC, I met with the SENATOR! He looks taller on TV.” And then you’ve got his vote, and his friends’ votes. Besides, you don’t get to be an elected official if you don’t like electioneering and charming your constituents. Members of Congress love doing that sort of stuff. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2009, 10:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-do-legislators-listen-to-lobbyists/507536/50 "2009-08-31T10:16:03Z")
I don’t think it’s that lobbyists really get that far buying influence of a legislator who is already in power. It’s a matter of getting someone elected who is inclined to listen to what you have to say. Not that there isn’t vote-buying as well. A corruptible pol is a gift that gives to many many special interests. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-do-legislators-listen-to-lobbyists/507536.md?page=2)