I've sat in a lawmaker's office with some friends before to ask them for help with something. We actually met with multiple state reps. That's lobbying that almost anybody can technically do. I don't think anyone is against that

As you pointed out, this is clearly about the type of lobbying where the politician ends up on the board of some industry group that they helped out or receives really generous PAC donations

> Lobbying is how businesses talk to government.

And if it were just talk, I think people would understand, but it's the mode of discussion, and obvious quid-pro-quos that make it so alien and unpalatable to the actual electorate. And by that I mean everything that isn't a discussion in your office or theirs, with the same treatment they'd have were they to meet with a voter. A cup of coffee and some homemade cake, wonderful. An expense-paid weeklong fishing expo in Bermuda? Nah.

It's hard to have this conversation while the current US administration pillages everything not screwed down and openly give themselves immunity from prosecution, but lawmakers at all levels of all branches should serve the electorate, not themselves. That's the job.

I'm sure your company only does positive, representative things, but the relationship some of your peers have with politicians and judges is unacceptable.

Ok, but does the government generally decide based on what’s in the best interest of the people, or the best interest of those who paid the most in the lobbying.

I think the answer to that should tell you how good or bad lobbying is.

> threatens your business, you want to be able to tell the government in realtime.

How nice! I wish normal people also had a “realtime” direct line to the government.

> Well, a big push from businesses got the rule amended and eventually removed, which is better for everyone. That’s lobbying.

Why would such efforts even be necessary if government would actually listen to its constituents?

> When we think of a “lobbyist” we think of Big Tobacco or Big Tax Prep Software

When we think of a “lobbyist” we think of more money = more access = more chances you’re being taken seriously. That’s the problem.

p.s. this is not directly to you personally, it’s about the system. I mean no offense.

Forgive my ignorance, but if you're not paying off the right people, how are you lobbying for change?

What's the mechanism, if not handing people cash and benefits if they support your cause?

> Remember the rule change to the amortization of software expenses, which inadvertently would have killed thousands of software companies?

While I’m sure this was lobbied heavily against by many companies, I don’t think that’s what did it. This was bad legislation done on purpose to poison the next administration, then undone as convenient.

> Lobbying is how businesses talk to government. And I get that that sounds nasty—and sometimes it is nasty—-but it’s necessary.

Sure. Its a just a shame people don't get a chance to talk too. I don't want a de-anonymised internet, for example, even if most businesses and the governance system think this is a 'good'.

I love this comment. It is extremely accurate to my experience.

It's not alien anywhere. There isn't a country where the rich don't heavily influence politics, there are no exceptions, and there never will be. They're almost always useful, and when they're not they're thrown out windows (Russia) or stripped of their assets (China). In the US when they go too far (or won't step in line), the government tends to eventually flex its power and remind them who is in charge. It's why people ranging from Bezos to Tim Cook are quasi-terrified of someone like Trump and his tantrum potential (despite how supposedly powerful those titans of industry are).

> through having experts to maintain a semblance of merit

Also, you have gradient from "actual honest expert advise" to "pushing own interest while claiming to be an expert".

Can't they make their issues known without paying the politician's campaign a bag of cash?

I think what we're seeing here is the consequence of the word lobbying being used when we lack a better alternative. It's overloaded currently, because we lack the necessary language to describe what's really going on in the US post-Citizen United.

One one hand, lobbying means interfacing with government leaders directly; engaging in face to face communication, and building relationships so that your interests are heard. No one thinks that's bad.

However, the US has taken many steps since well before Citizens United to build a kind of legal fiction which has made bribes legal, which is wrapped in the same language as what I'll call "ethical lobbying." As the OP points out, as long as on the record there are enough levels of separation between the politician and the person or organization giving the money, it's completely fine. The fact that the CEO and the politician are having lunch together is just a coincidence as they are definitely old buddies who have a shared mutual friend.

This problem has existed for a while in the US, but the Citizens United decision and the expense of running re-election campaigns has made it far, far worse.

Lobbying, in theory, isn’t bribery.

Lobbying, in practice, has turned into a form of bribery.

if by "relevant" you mean "rich", sure

now consider if that is the entire set of stakeholders

> Lobbying is a way for relevant stakeholders to make their issues known.

If only America was some kind of "representative" democracy where it was already the job of politicians to find this out.

>slopulism

TIL

>1, Populism characterized by low-quality (often gen AI) memes and conspiracy theories.

>2, Populism characterized by vague, disingenuous, or excessively idealistic claims.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/slopulism

I disagree with categorization though. Or now lower quality writing will be also branded as AI generated?

In a representative democracy you're supposed to represent the people equally. That's why everyone gets one vote, and the law puts a lot of effort to make sure votes cannot be bought.

If you get around that principle by paying, however indirectly, it's a degree of bribery.

Lots of big lobbying companies corrupting Australia, too.

Less "sophisticated" countries just tend cut out the lobbyist middleman and call it what it is - bribery.

It's uniquely protected in the US, due to the constitution protecting freedom of speech. The supreme court has ruled that the government cannot stop anyone from sharing their views of candidates or campaigning on their behalf.

Explicitly allowing payments with lobbying is more rare.

Yeah, what's next, assuming that non-USians aren't aware of the concept of 'corruption' ?

Vote with your wallet, they say. And how thy do!

Often with strict spending limits. Which get violated, but at least it's not A-OK legally.

Everywhere where you have democracy?

Yes, I strictly interpreted "completely".

Look the guy over is doing it too!

Not guilty your honor.

Some argument dude.