But others don't lack those means. Others always have financial resources and political connections, even if you banned lobbying. Of all the ways people can influence policy, this is the legal one. The other methods are not nearly as civilized.

Also, just to be clear, is the Teachers Union an embarrassment to democracy? Auto workers? Environmental groups? Or are there some forms of lobbying you're okay with as long as your ox isn't gored?

> If we define lobbying as using your financial resources and/or political connections (which others lack) to successfully influence policy

This definition is sloppy. If I buy a tacky "In this house..." sign and place it in my yard, I am using my financial resources to influence policy. Restricting that by law would be a disaster.

I think a better point could be made about the relationship BETWEEN financial resources and political connections. We should seek policies that limit the extent to which financial resources can easily buy political connections. This can be done by placing restrictions on public servants instead of restrictions on the public.

Of course, you're never going to totally remove the connection without totally destroying freedom of association.

Businesses should be able to communicate with policy makers especially when it impacts their industry.

In other words who would you trust to create a sensible encryption policy, Google executives or Chuck Schumer?

I know who I would pick

if we define anything in a way we want to define it to get the meaning we want then it ends up meaning what we want it to, however corruption in most definitions that I am aware of includes some sort of benefit to those making a political decision for the results of that political decision.

If we accepted your definition then it should follow that if you have political connections then you cannot influence policy without being corrupt, which seems weird because having political connections probably indicates political interest or knowledge of the issues.

Now you may feel that is an unfair description, that one can influence policy to the same extent as those without political connections and thus not be corrupt, but the problem with that is if you have political connections they will probably hear about your attempts and they will be influenced through that connection no matter what you try, not to mention that often your political connections are exactly the people that should be talked to, and in this way we see that people with political connections must be locked out of the process by your definition if we want to fight corruption.

Locking people out of the process seems as problematic as being corrupt, but luckily I follow the model of there has to be some personal benefit involved with the corruption so I don't need to argue for locking anyone out.

I'm not sure what you mean by financial, for example financial resources to affect a decision often includes advertising on the issue. I agree this can make things unfair, because someone with a lot of money can buy more ads than someone without.

In that case one could put funding limits on political ads, but so many issues are not directly political but still you can move the emotions of the public on them via advertising that it does not seem possible to really control. Maybe it should be attempted.

That said, although I believe it will invariably be unfair, unfair and corrupt are not synonymous.

Would you rather take advice from a friend or from a random person?

So... the Red Cross using their financial resources and/or political connections (which others lack) to successfully influence policy is committing to corruption?

It's not "corruption" if it's the way it should be done. Corruption would imply some sort of nefarious means.

lol it’s this and can only be this

Lobbying is the right to petition the government. What you need is a countervailing powers to limit regulatory failure of institutional capture.

Just like the original post, make a definition that mistakes a pathology of the system for its core function (also: structural inequality is not corruption).

If you are a purist and eliminate all resource-backed influence by banning pooling money, hiring researchers, and organizing campaigns to influence lawmakers because "others lack those resources," you effectively ban organized labour unions, consumer watchdogs, civil liberties organizations. A well-organized national labor union has more leverage than a non-unionized gig worker in the EU. Asymmetry an inequity issue, not corruption. Well organized will trump over those who are not.

Corporations should be able to lobby, but they their lobbying should be limited more heavily.

Precisely. Information you don't pay for isn't news, it is propaganda. If you didn't pay for the product, you are the product.

We have groups of experts that advise lawmakers. For example, institutions that advise lawmakers on public health - currently headed by world class health expert RFK Jr.

Point being, it's impossible to build incorruptible institutions, groups of experts, etc, but we need them nonetheless.

Lobbying in it's most basic form is simply the act of petitioning politicians that represent you, which is pretty essential in a democracy.

If you've ever called your Senator or representative to tell them you oppose a law that will negatively impact you - you've just done a little lobbying

> appoint expert groups to collect information

So... you'll have the representatives make their own lobbying groups? Also, each "expert" will have their own bias, so in doing so you'll inadvertently (or intentionally) block hearing from the wider community.

The alternative is that paid government officials and government/EU research institutions supply their research results to lawmakers and refuse to read gray papers from corporations or big civil influence groups. That's all well and good as part of the mix, but on its own, a very narrow viewpoint in a complex society. (The fight over who is nominated to these research jobs becomes even more political.)

Removing possibilities of corruption from MEPs means removing their power and moving it into deeper government bureaucracy where it is harder to spot. Now you have non-elected people who work whole their life in government using more power.

> In an ideal world, this probably should be banned for fairness reasons. Smaller institutions would always have necessarily less influence and power over policy.

This is prohibited, not in an ideal world, but in essentially every Western democracy except the United States. I appreciate the political difficulty of implimenting this (or indeed any useful structural) change in the contemporary American political climate / level of dysfunction. But outlawing corruption is not some utopian dream.

We absolutely want politicians to listen to lobbyists in a way that is proportional to some parameter besides the number of people they represent. The should listen to who is right, not which lobby represents the most members. Self-interested groups lobby for bad legislation all the time. When the harm to society is diffuse, they don't always have a large lobby opposing them.

If I call my local representative on the phone, or email them, that's lobbying. Am I not allowed to contact those I've elected to represent me?

Now, if you mean I shouldn't be allowed to take my representative on a Caribbean vacation, then we're agreed, because bribery is (or should be) illegal. And yes, I'm including many forms of campaign donation as "bribery".

What do you mean "a problem that doesn't need to exist"? What's the specific problem you are thinking of?

Trade and especially the shared European market required industry input which you might call lobbying. Regulations had to be homogenized to create a level playing field. To attack what matters European law makers needed lobby input. This happens all the time on a smaller scale with trade agreements. Think of the famous chlorine-washed chicken in the US situation. If a country prohibits this their chicken industry might want a for-export exemption when a trade deal with the US is made.

You also have lobbying that could be seen as genuinely good. Insurance companies lobbied for a lot of car safety standards and fire safety standards. (That said I'm libertarian enough that I don't actually see enforcement of standards that protect the occupant by law as positive but most people do)

Lobbying is the foundation of democracy. Technically it is everyone's civic obligation to do it.

The trouble with democracy, of course, is that most people don't have (or don't think they have, at least) the time or resources to participate.

twin

Great example, since in practise goto is essential

Are you sure it was internet opinions that made grassroots lobbying ineffective, or is it the incomprehensible amounts of money backing up the lobbyists of corporations and the wealthy?

They have healthcare and workers rights and pretty strong social safety nets. I'd say they're doing ok.

They do.

And you are also free to visit your representative's at their offices.

For example, Congress is open to visit - you can request a pass for specific sessions, you can schedule meetings with congressional staffers (face to face with the actual congressman is harder, but theoretically possible), etc. Local and state reps are typically easier to visit.

They do this. It's called lobbying...

> Cool story, lobbying is corruption

These kind of down putting responses make everyone worse.

> paying for a 3 star restaurant for an MEP

Like I said, that's corruption in lobbying, not lobbying. Lobbying is the ability to talk to government officials.

Pikers.

Buying the house that a Supreme Court Justice's mother lives in, that's corruption.

> actual dollar amounts for these campaign contributions, they are often fairly small

considering that the two main candidates in the last prez election raised about a billion dollars each, I beg to differ

yes, individual contributions may be capped at $25K, but the PACs can spend unlimited amounts thanks to Citizens United

Experts need to talk to politicians, but it should be done so through a proper institutional structure (for example a public hearing). Not in private meetings.

What influence groups say to policy makers has to be able to be challenged by opposing interest.

Not only that, but it's important for these advocacy groups to disclose their financing for all to see.

Its always going to be a cat and mouse game because ultimately corporations want to have undue influence over politics, it helps them greatly.

The first stepping stone needs to be to acknowledged that the interests of corporations can and in many cases will be against the interests of the majority of constituents and so we can't allow for our laws and practices to just waver this fact and institutionalise corruption through lobbying.

It's very naive to think consumers and the general population can organise to the effectiveness and level of a corporation. But that doesn't mean people don't care, or don't deserve to have their interests protected.

Why not find experts in e.g. universities? Or, like, hire people with industry experience to provide advice rather than let industry hire politicians?

It’s too simplistic to think that the only form of political signaling that should happen is ... one person one vote as a basis for a mandate to represent peoples interests. It’s easy to see how that can lead to a tyranny of the majority situation. There does need to be a path for influence for those with special interests in an area to influence decisions also. I think the arguments usually come down to which types of special interests give which types of standing on an issue.. if we want to say a business working in an industry shouldn't lobby then do we also say that a local environmental group should(nt) have a say about some area they are experts on also?.. Some things are also put up for general referendum even when they outweightedly affect only a small group.. I think a lot of places had made progress towords finding this balance of steakholder representation.. but now were just slipping back to creptocracy and tyranny eveywhere and forgetting it all.

I think the fix is to make representative democracy recursive.

I can indicate other citizens that I trust on the basis of their expertise, and they can further indicate others in the same way.

The roots of those trees are my representatives for whatever domain, they have unequal standing proportional to the size of their constituency, and I can reconfigure my pointers towards different representatives at different times, or I can point them all at myself and show up in person for some direct democracy.

I not think anyone means "talk to representative" when they say "lobbying" unless it is accompanied by contributions

Probably because you missjudge the bottom line. We're still at the beginning because we will go down far bellow anyone's expectation.

That’s what I thought when I was watching fast and furious 3, yet here we are.

European parliament has very little power, I wouldn't bother lobbying there too much anyway.

Most corrupt in the world? Easy to debunk: It ranks on 10 (10th best) as per https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2025 Do they need to do better? Absolutely!

I think this is wrong. The fact that elon musk or israel was able to fund a public PAC in US transparently is a good thing rather than behind closed door, unlike how walmart did in developing countries like India and got caught.

Why not just direct democracy? We have the tech to do it all, no need to give up agency to whoever makes the model.

Your AI overlord has just declared war on France because of a hallucination.

I would rather have the ability to do it rather than not on pure ideological grounds,furthermore not banning it incentivises transparency, you can see more of where the money is coming from for example in US democrats are funded by more aggregate donors.

No, they're an advocacy group, and people like you are useful idiots giving lobbyists an excuse every single time. "Oh but look, if you ban us, you also ban the 'don't kill puppies' group! Wouldn't that be terrible?"

MADD does not pay politicians. MADD does not bring politicians gifts. MADD does not invite them to an expensive restaurant for three hours of one on one. MADD does not do any of the things a lobbyist does that is, for all intents and purposes, corruption.

So you know what ? Yeah, let's silence the don't kill puppies group, if it means that the leeches at the european commission also don't get their ways. "oh but then it will be done secretly" good that means it's officially corruption and we can jail everyone involved.

It’s not sarcasm, you just aren’t using words correctly. Lobbying is just an attempt at persuasion. In a democracy, it is a built in feature, not a bug, to have broad participation and many points of view.

I still remember being told in grade school that only other countries have propaganda.

You couldn’t be more wrong,

- The American Cancer Society lobbies against big tobacco. Warnings exist on cigarettes because of their lobbying work.

- Associations of students are distinct from associations of administrators or institutions. All of them lobby government. There are associations of this kind at every level, including for public city colleges, some of which don’t charge tuition at all.

- The simple practice of lobbying your legislators does not imply or require money. Donations to campaigns are a totally separate thing and are regulated tightly as well. For example: hosting a dinner for legislators to learn about some topic is lobbying; donating to a campaign so they can buy ads is campaign finance. Both are tracked and regulated and the data is public.

- Local cities/counties: yes, those are governments, obviously. They are still stakeholders in the process of making policy just like anyone else.

- In the US, a state government is distinct from a local government. So a local city informing the state of impacts on policy, and the state factoring that in to new or changed policy, is totally normal and reasonable and also a feature, not a bug, of a healthy democracy.

- ASPCA = American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

- Trade unions are affected by policy and law, and therefore deserve a voice at the table just like everyone else. Whether unions are a good or bad thing is entirely outside the scope of lobbying as a concept.

Every single one of these is normal and not necessarily corruption. Corruption is errant in a system; lobbying is the system working as intended.

Policy should be made by people who are aware of what their policies will do to other people. Simply put, lobbying is American democracy’s solution to that problem.

If you live in America, work in America, or have interests in America, you can lobby, too. You don’t need to register or obtain permission or a license. Just call your representative and set up a meeting.

Half of Americans did not have democracy until 20th Century

Who are "they", you mean one commenter you assume is European? You are right that at the beginning of the 20th century, there was still a lack of democratic structures, in Europe, as well as in the United States of America, where the 19th amendment was introduced in 1920 and the Voting Right Act in 1965.

They are flagged because they are off topic for HN