Thursday, January 8, 2009
The Fallacy of Being Against Washington Lobbyists
It seems to me, however, that everyone in the United States in some way benefits from the work of lobbyists in that everyone has at least one interest (be it it economic, ideological/humanitarian or hobby) that has someone (or multiple people) lobbying for that interest.
I readily admit that there are lobbyists in Washington working to further interests of mine, including lobbyists for my employer. I don't want them to stop their work -- I want them to be more successful at what they do.
I suspect that most people who are opposed to the "special interests" either:
a. Don't realize that they have lobbyists on their side; or
b. Want other people / interest groups to lose their lobbyists.
Therein lies the problem. What one person calls the "better argument" others call nonsense. When politicians rail against "special interests" it usually means those interests they don't agree with, or more likely, those interests who haven't contributed to their campaign.
To be clear, do you understand the difference between the concept of "shopping" and the concept of "shoplifting"?
Lobbying: to promote the passage of legislation by influencing public officials; to attempt or sway a public official toward action.
What these folks did, albeit illegally, is lobbying. I am not sure why you folks are arguing that the fact that it was illegal makes the situation better. It makes it worse.
Lobbying is a scourge. We should do what we can to get rid of it. The big $$$$ players are the ones that win. When you see a story about green technology lobbyists sleeping with government officials, we can revisit.
This story is a very good example of one of the pitfalls of our democratic system.
What about issues that aren't tied to $$$$? Do you really think that it is good in our government that the issues that bring in the most dough are the ones that get the influence?
AARP is widely thought to have one of the most influential lobbies in DC. Why? Because they represent people who vote. It's NOT about the money (and although they do spread that around, on issues like privatizing social security Wall Street spends WAY more money lobbying than AARP does).
The job of a legislator is to get elected. So a lobbyist is only ever going to be as influential as the votes he or she is bringing to the table. PAC contributions help a little, but no legislator is going to do something to piss off a bunch of old people just for a little PAC coin.
And you are totally discounting the role ideology plays in politics. No matter how many oil lobbyists beg and beg and give Nancy Pelosi money, she's ideologically married to the notion of alternative energy over oil.
There is SO much more to lobbying than money is my point.
The answer to both is no. So who won and who lost?
I think this is just wrong. The millions of dollars car companies spent on advertising did beat the public policy consideration of increased fuel efficiency. This is why since 1975 every single step toward more efficiency has been a tremendous battle and it has progressed so slowy. The united states, along with maybe canada if I remember correctly, are the lowest of major powers when it comes to our auto efficiency. You're going to tell me this isn't a win for the car companies? Why the differences between countries? You don't think our lobbying system has anything to do with it?
I may not like the level of influence that the oil industry has, but I like the fact that my company has a similar level of influence in issues of relevance to it or that the AARP is lobbying to maintain Social Security, or that my union is lobbying to make it harder to export jobs, etc.
The notion of parity in lobbying breaks down once one lives in Washington.
OK well if you go to news.google.com and type in "oil lobby sex" you come up with over 1,000 hits. I'm sure you can find a couple of sources in there. :)
Right, and the system sucks. That's my point.
If you can come up with a better way, the country's all ears.
I think for starters we can set up guidelines for how lobbyists should act, beyond what is legal and illegal. Requiring lobbyists to sign on to a code of ethics, similar to how lawyers do with the bar, would be helpful. A good start might be the Woodstock Principles.
Sorry.
That's a bunch of hooey as far as I'm concerned. I think actually koko presented an excellent example of a lobbying win.
Religious influence on the FCC is "unfortunate" because it's unfortunate for me. None of us, including you, really represents an objective and altruistic perspective.
Exactly. We all have our POV. And, thanks the the first amendment, we are all free to make our case to our elected representatives under the rules set by same.
If there is a better system for creating responsive government I've yet to see it.
However, in this particular case, I would say that religious influence on the FCC does happen to be up against pretty substantial opposition. :)
True, but just having jets and cash does not automatically make a special interest more evil than another, any more than not having those things makes one's arguments more sacred.
Religious influence on the FCC is "unfortunate" because it's unfortunate for me. None of us, including you, really represents an objective and altruistic perspective.
And if lobbying is so pluralistic, as some would have us believe, the religious influence on the FCC should be counteracted by other (perhaps atheist) forces and thus it should not be unfortunate for you. You, theoretically, should have your lobbyists fighting on your behalf as well. Again, assuming this pluralism thing is right (which it isn't).
No, the government does not have too much money. The government is broke. The government spends too much money, not (primarily) because it taxes people too highly, but because it borrows too much.
Much of what the government does should be privatized or eliminated all together.
Agree.
There should be little or no funds available for professional lobbyists (who are paid to legally bribe politicians) to go after.
The problem is, it's not just handouts that the lobbyists are after. Yes, that's a big piece, for sure, but what funds is the NRA after? What funds are the pro-life lobby after? What funds are the environmentalists after?
How am I being "inexplicably hostile" toward you? :confused:
Would it help if you knew that I'd personally been on the losing million-dollar side of that question several times? :o;)
But if that IS your goal, Senor First Amendment must be your public enemy #1:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
What about issues that aren't tied to $$$$? Do you really think that it is good in our government that the issues that bring in the most dough are the ones that get the influence?Don't forget that there are other strong influences at play, as well. Unfortunately, religion has a significant impact in places like the FCC, for example.
3) Your analysis in no way refutes the basic problem here: the issues with money get the attention. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Those issues without money are, well, ....ed.Isn't this a bigger issue of the representation you've chosen, rather than those people who would try and persuade those respresentatives?
No, but it does suggest that money can buy politics, which at root is what people are against. If the money was equal, and everyone had private jets, then the problem would be minimized because the money cancels out. But the issue is that the money doesn't cancel out and more $$$$ equals more favorable policies.
Are you under the impression that lobbying and breaking the law are mutually exclusive? Why?
Religious influence on the FCC is "unfortunate" because it's unfortunate for me. None of us, including you, really represents an objective and altruistic perspective.
I think for starters we can set up guidelines for how lobbyists should act, beyond what is legal and illegal. Requiring lobbyists to sign on to a code of ethics, similar to how lawyers do with the bar, would be helpful. A good start might be the Woodstock Principles.Of the activities that are currently legal for registered lobbyists, which in particular do you feel should be subject to more restriction under an ethics code?
Honestly dude.
I'm not looking at it on an issue by issue basis. People supportive of "green" technologies may lose on that issue, but win on another. Hence, it balances out.
I may not like the level of influence that the oil industry has, but I like the fact that my company has a similar level of influence in issues of relevance to it or that the AARP is lobbying to maintain Social Security, or that my union is lobbying to make it harder to export jobs, etc.
okay. I'm still not sure what you want from us.
"Want from you"? We're having a discussion. You know, that's what grown ups do from time to time. Even on the internet.
How do we disaggregate a system that works from one that is broken?
I am starting from the premise that if you make an activity that benefits people illegal, it does not go away, but rather goes underground. When such an activity is legal, it can be regulated and better monitored. In this case, people apparently went over the line and were caught. Are there other similar situations occurring that have not (yet) come to light? I strongly suspect so, but, to me, it seems that the odds of being caught increase with the activity being legal and regulated.
It's same reasoning that I use to support legalized abortion and legalized drugs.
The job of a legislator is to get elected. So a lobbyist is only ever going to be as influential as the votes he or she is bringing to the table. PAC contributions help a little, but no legislator is going to do something to piss off a bunch of old people just for a little PAC coin.
And you are totally discounting the role ideology plays in politics. No matter how many oil lobbyists beg and beg and give Nancy Pelosi money, she's ideologically married to the notion of alternative energy over oil.
There is SO much more to lobbying than money is my point.
A couple problems with your analysis:
1) The job of a legislator is to get elected. Correct. The second job of a legislator is to get re-elected. Getting re-elected means raising money. PACs represent a wonderful way to do that easily.
2) For every Pelosi out there who is ideologically married to a given issue, there are 5 legislators who are willing to talk to the lobbyists. Remember, it's not just about big ticket items like oil. There are lobbyiststs for everything that has money attached to it. Not all legislators, even Pelosi, are ideologically married to every single conceivable issue out there that has $$$$ attached to it.
3) Your analysis in no way refutes the basic problem here: the issues with money get the attention. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Those issues without money are, well, ....ed.
Sure, and if you think lobbying is a good thing then why is this "unfortunate"? Isn't it just the system "working"?
However, in this particular case, I would say that religious influence on the FCC does happen to be up against pretty substantial opposition. :)
Such as?
I would like them to have to take a test on ethics, like lawyers do. I'd like them to have to sign an agreement that they will uphold those ethics, like lawyers do. I'd like them to continue to have to report what they do, and probably to a greater extent than is currently done.
And, since I'm a socialist, I would also advocate for some sort of cap on lobbying expenditures by corporations.
I don't feel the need to defend this point. If you really want examples of the news media referring to these folks as lobbyists, believe me, there are plenty of examples.
But this is really kind of silly.
The larger (i.e. important) point is that this story is a perfect example of why lobbying is not a "fallacy." There are legitimate problems with it. The most important one, in my opinion, is not whether or not bribery is included in lobbying, but rather the fact that individuals that represent corporations and interests with lots of $$$$$ get access to our officials; those representing corporations and interests without said resources don't.
When you find examples of green technology "representatives" (to make you happy I won't use the lobbyist term) sleeping with (or "bribing") government officials, please let me know. I'll be here.
What noun have you seen used to refer to them? :confused: I've seen lobbyist in the news stories I've been reading...
Cheap gas.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/10/oiil.scandal/index.htmlWell, technically, they were breaking the law, and seem to have gotten caught doing it. They weren't lobbying, they were bribing. There will be consequence.
If I worked for an oil company, I'd want my company spending money on legal lobbying. I work for a industrial conglomerate that is a large defense contractor and I fully support its legal lobbying efforts.
You don't get it. The lobbying complex is what makes this thing possible. Lobbying is why these individuals were in a position to bribe in the first place.
Furthermore, the two of you might want to take a gander of the definition of lobbying @:-): http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lobbying
Let's look at a relatively simple matter: CAFE. Did the millions of dollars the car companies spend on advertising and lobbying beat the public policy consideration of increased fuel efficiency? Did the hard lobbying by enviros establish alt energy quotas and 55mpg?
The answer to both is no. So who won and who lost?
Well, the car companies now have to get to 35mpg, but there are no alt fuel quotas included. So who benefited and who was hurt?
I always say that the definition of a good compromise is that no one is gloating, no one is crying and no one feels totally comfortable. And that good lobbying is about the art of compromise.
But what I am saying is that money is not the end all, be all of lobbying. It helps, sure. But give me a sound public policy up against a million dollar lobbying campaign for poor public policy and 9 times out of 10 you're going to end up with the sound public policy.
Far more often than not, PAC contributions simply THANK and REWARD like-minded legislators for taking the action that they would have taken anyway.
It's like if you send money to Obama's campaign. You don't actually expect him to change his mind on issues due to your contribution; you are contributing because of where he already stands. @:-)
You lost me here. The activities you're talking about benefit some people at the detriment of others. Isn't that significantly different than legalized abortion or legalized drugs?
The larger (i.e. important) point is that this story is a perfect example of why lobbying is not a "fallacy." There are legitimate problems with it. The most important one, in my opinion, is not whether or not bribery is included in lobbying, but rather the fact that individuals that represent corporations and interests with lots of $$$$$ get access to our officials; those representing corporations and interests without said resources don't.
When you find examples of green technology "representatives" (to make you happy I won't use the lobbyist term) sleeping with (or "bribing") government officials, please let me know. I'll be here.
And in terms of elections, until all candidates decide to take public funding, we're going to be very directly paying for access.
If you can come up with a better way, the country's all ears.
But what I am saying is that money is not the end all, be all of lobbying. It helps, sure. But give me a sound public policy up against a million dollar lobbying campaign for poor public policy and 9 times out of 10 you're going to end up with the sound public policy.
I wish I could be as optimistic as you, but I'm not sure the above it true. Actually I'm pretty sure it's not true.
To be clear, do you understand the difference between the concept of "shopping" and the concept of "shoplifting"?
Hey Pres, just curious. Does everyone in the US benefit from our government officials having sex with, and taking monetary bribes from, oil companies? The only fallacy here seems to be that lobbying is innocuous.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/10/oiil.scandal/index.html
Only if you take the whole interest instead of individual policy positions. For instance, the insurance industry might be against the AARP on aged driving issues, but with them on something else. Too many issues cross over political and economic boundaries to categorize groups as wholly in support of or against any other group.
If this were actually how things worked then special interests would cancel each other out. The problem, of course, is that some special interests are created more special than others by virtue of them possessing lots of cash, private jets, etc.
Well then lets get a productive definition on the table. Do you want to proffer one? I would agree that the dictionary definition is broad and includes a lot of activities. The point I was trying to make is that I don't believe any definition you're going to find draws a line between legal lobbying and illegal bribery. But maybe you have one.
* lobbying isn't the problem, it's a sympton. as long as government redirects such massive resources, people are going to do their best to influence the direction in which it is redirected.
* it's bizarre to think that, absent nefarious individuals out for their own gain, wise politicians would 'do the right thing' (or even know what the right thing to do is).
There's been some studies on transparency in earmarks, that the more people know about earmarks the more earmarks there are. Politicians love sunlight, it publicizes the scores they make for their constituents. And concentrated benefits/dispersed costs are such that the ones who pay attention are the ones who benefit.
Right, and koko presented another industry which illustrates the point brilliantly.
All that banning lobbying would do is drive it underground, it's not going to end it. Better to keep it legal where it can be regulated.
But you're missing the entire point: once again the ones that are in the position to influence policy making are the ones with the $$$$. How is that a good thing for the United States?
Japan, where the system is set up to protect and reward Honda and Toyota?
This is 'Merika. We drive 40 miles to work. We drive to school. We drive to soccer. We ain't got no trains, no centralized population. We drive.
And we like big, powerful cars.
It's what the people, the VOTERS want...or wanted, until $4 gas.
Trust me, the auto industry does NOT view the 07 energy bill a win. It is a painful, costly compromise.
Maybe. But I'm still not convinced that if you take all of the disparate groups against old people and put them together they'd even approach the resources the AARP has. Same thing with the NRA. Take all of the anti-gun folks in Washington and you might get, oh I dunno, maybe a tenth or a quarter of the resources of the NRA if you're lucky?
Abortion definitely is at the detriment of the unborn child.
Legalized drugs is at the detriment of the drug cartels, gangs, and peddlers.
This is really lame, IMHO. You think advocates of green technologies have the level of resources working in Washington as the oil lobby does?
Honestly dude.
Fair enough, but everyone has an interest in which their lobbyists engage in this type of conduct. Everyone benefits. Some more than others, to be sure, but everyone has someone in Washington looking out their interests.
I don't buy the notion that it is to the detriment of others because almost everyone has at least one of these entities lobbying on their behalf (hence it all balances out). The people who don't are probably so marginal that they don't really matter.
I don't think that's true. What's the interest against old people (i.e. against the AARP)?
It's also not true that all lobbying organizations are created equal. What is the equal weight against the NRA in terms of resources?
So even if you can answer the first question, and it is true that everyone has someone in Washington looking out for them, does it really matter? If you are dwarfed in money and resources what good is just being there?
There should be little or no funds available for professional lobbyists (who are paid to legally bribe politicians) to go after.
Is that a "scourge" also?
okay. I'm still not sure what you want from us.
And if they don't win on another issue?
What about issues that aren't tied to $$$$? Do you really think that it is good in our government that the issues that bring in the most dough are the ones that get the influence?
You don't need to define lobbying. Bribery is a crime and is what appears to have happened here. There are very specific rules on what it and is not permitted. In this case, it would appear people stepped over the line and they were caught. The system worked.
All that banning lobbying would do is drive it underground, it's not going to end it. Better to keep it legal where it can be regulated.
:confused: Is this case I cited not lobbying? Is bribery not lobbying? By the way, how do we know the sex was bribery? The sex could have just been about trying to get one's position (pun not intended) across.
Maybe you're right. Maybe we need something similar to the bar for lobbyists. Would you be opposed to that?
Who has won, would you say?
I think you're way off base here. From what I read, it sounds like criminal activity occurred, which is not legal lobbying.
If I worked for an oil company, I'd want my company spending money on legal lobbying. I work for a industrial conglomerate that is a large defense contractor and I fully support its legal lobbying efforts.
But this is really kind of silly.
The larger (i.e. important) point is that this story is a perfect example of why lobbying is not a "fallacy." There are legitimate problems with it. The most important one, in my opinion, is not whether or not bribery is included in lobbying, but rather the fact that individuals that represent corporations and interests with lots of $$$$$ get access to our officials; those representing corporations and interests without said resources don't.
When you find examples of green technology "representatives" (to make you happy I won't use the lobbyist term) sleeping with (or "bribing") government officials, please let me know. I'll be here.
You really are not making that point by focusing on this allegedly criminal conduct. The alleged perpetrators were caught. This proves that the system works.
I think the very first Woodstock Principle is a good start:
1) The pursuit of lobbying must take into account the common good, not merely a particular client's interests narrowly considered.
A genuine commitment to the common good, the comprehensive and enduring well being of the political community as a whole, by clients, lobbyists, and policy makers, is essential if the integrity of American democracy is to be preserved and enhanced. To secure this end, the concerns of all citizens who may be affected by specific legislative and policy decisions should be effectively represented in the decision making process. In addition, our manner of financing political campaigns should not compromise elected officials or undermine public trust in their independence and impartiality.
a) Since the purpose of lobbying is to influence the making of public policy, lobbyists should recognize that their responsibilities are different from those of an advocate in a purely private controversy between two adversaries, such as the parties to a lawsuit. By its nature, the lobbying process is designed to influence policy makers whose choices will have much broader political consequences.
b) Therefore, in deciding whether to undertake an engagement or assignment and in determining what arguments to advance in support of, or in opposition to, a position, lobbyists should weigh the implications of their efforts for the well being of the country as a whole; and should inform both their client and the policy maker of the probable economic, social and political consequences of the policy objectives being pursued.
c) The lobbyist should give special attention to the effects of government action or inaction on the least advantaged and most vulnerable citizens.
d) While serving as an advocate for a client's position, the lobbyist retains a personal responsibility as a citizen for the fairness, integrity and effectiveness of the policy making process as well as for the substantive political outcomes to which it leads.
Sorry.
Well it seems to me that you're the one arguing that these individuals were not lobbyists. They were what, briberists? What is the distinction? Somehow when lobbyists go illegal they're no longer lobbyists?
That proves that the system works? Are you suggesting that other similar illegal activities are not occurring, because if they are they would be caught? :confused:
How do we disaggregate a system that works from one that is broken?
#If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.# |
Posted by webmaster |