Becoming a Lobbyist

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't want to glorify lobbyists, but I think the whole "professional briber" criticism is misplaced. Lobbyists perform a valuable function. For practical purposes, it is impossible for any member of Congress to be "experts" on the various issues that come across their desks. We cannot expect them to write quality legislation on a topic that is, mostly, foreign to them. Lobbyists are industry experts who assist with drafting legislation, responding to proposed legislation, etc. Of course they are biased toward their particular cause, but that doesn't mean that there is no value in their opinions.

[/ QUOTE ]


Politicians seek power to sell power. Who do they sell it to? To special interests. Either legal or illegal. Either publicly or under the table.


Oh, and another technique is to extort. Like they did with Microsoft. Company X has money. Company X doesn't bribe. Put pressure on company X. Company X is forced to start bribing. Pressure is relieved (temporarily).


Brilliant scam.

[Nielsio]

Barry Greenstein has some thoughts on this as well:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HO7AQrsicM

[ConstantineX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For practical purposes, it is impossible for any member of Congress to be "experts" on the various issues that come across their desks. We cannot expect them to write quality legislation on a topic that is, mostly, foreign to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an argument against representative democracy, not an argument for lobbyists.

[/ QUOTE ]


Um, why not? We don't think badly of MADD lobbying for DUI legislation, isn't this a grass-roots effort? What's more, your comment seems to construe the aims of representative democracy and lobbyist as clearly opposing, exposing an anti-corporate bias, since I don't think you would have an objection to my previous example. A corporation has just as much a right to express its "views" as an individual. The aims of lobbyists can be aligned with or against the aims of representative democracy. There is no intrinsic "link" between the two, unless you want it so.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Um, why not? We don't think badly of MADD lobbying for DUI legislation, isn't this a grass-roots effort?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. A grass-roots effort would be MADD convincing voters to vote for DUI legislation. MADD trying to convince an already elected official to introduce a law that was not part of their election platform is not democratic. It's not the representative's place to decide what's best for their constituents: it's the representative's place to do what the constituents tell him/her to do. Not what MADD tells him/her to do.

[ QUOTE ]
What's more, your comment seems to construe the aims of representative democracy and lobbyist as clearly opposing, exposing an anti-corporate bias, since I don't think you would have an objection to my previous example.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think wrong. When did MADD decide to be my moral advocate? I didn't elect MADD to office: if they want me to vote for their platform they should talk to me. Circumventing me and going right to my representative is not democratic.

[ QUOTE ]
A corporation has just as much a right to express its "views" as an individual.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh really? Does each corporation get a vote? And if a corporation wants me, as an individual, to vote for laws that help them they should be talking to me. The representative is there to do what he/she said she would do when elected, not what the corporations say they should do now.

[ QUOTE ]
The aims of lobbyists can be aligned with or against the aims of representative democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true if they lobby to voters. It is not true when they lobby to elected representatives to do something other than than what they were elected to do.

I think the entire premise of your post is that elected officials are in office to be experts that make good choices for their consituents. This is entirely wrong, as elected representatives are there to represent. This does not mean "decide for". The fact that so many people have been duped into this distorted view of democracy is why democracy looks so bad to the ACists on this board.

[ChrisAJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Step #1 - Bribe congressman
Step #2 - Have congressman give huge amounts of public money to your client
Step #3 - Client pays you big dollars (this can also be step #0)

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never experienced steps 1 and 2, but 3 is nice.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
MADD trying to convince an already elected official to introduce a law that was not part of their election platform is not democratic.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? Trying to convince someone to agree to your position isn't democratic?

[ QUOTE ]
It's not the representative's place to decide what's best for their constituents

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it is. Representatives are elected to make decisions on your behalf. If you don't think they are doing so appropriately, you can try to convince them otherwise or vote for someone else.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
MADD trying to convince an already elected official to introduce a law that was not part of their election platform is not democratic.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? Trying to convince someone to agree to your position isn't democratic?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it isn't. If you cast a vote for a representative because he says he'll vote for A, B, and C and then when he's in office he doesn't isn't that a failure of democracy? You think it's democracy in action when representatives do what is in the interest of a minority of the people they represent?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not the representative's place to decide what's best for their constituents

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it is. Representatives are elected to make decisions on your behalf. If you don't think they are doing so appropriately, you can try to convince them otherwise or vote for someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what we did last election!!!! We told the representative what to do. He doesn't get to decide mid-term that he'll do what the minority wants instead. That is not democracy. The fact that people think it is democracy is what fuels anti-democratic rhetoric such as we usually hear from our friends on this board.

[Copernicus]

Are you sure you're from TO and not MQ? You think very French. (hint, that is not intended as a compliment).

[ QUOTE ]
A grass-roots effort would be MADD convincing voters to vote for DUI legislation. MADD trying to convince an already elected official to introduce a law that was not part of their election platform is not democratic. It's not the representative's place to decide what's best for their constituents: it's the representative's place to do what the constituents tell him/her to do. Not what MADD tells him/her to do.


[/ QUOTE ]

MADD is simply an organization formed to present the opinions of the rep's constiuents. It most certainly is the rep's responsibility to weigh those opinions against conflicting views of others in his consituency and decide on behalf of the entire constituency. Democracy is not just a indiviudal voices trying to be heard.

[ QUOTE ]
You think wrong. When did MADD decide to be my moral advocate? I didn't elect MADD to office: if they want me to vote for their platform they should talk to me. Circumventing me and going right to my representative is not democratic.



[/ QUOTE ]

MADD isn't circumventing anything. If your representative doesn't take into account opposing views it is his failure, not an undemocratic process.

[ QUOTE ]
. The representative is there to do what he/she said she would do when elected, not what the corporations say they should do now.



[/ QUOTE ]
ORLY? During the election process every single issue that could possibly come before a candidate is discussed and his position made known and immutable? I didn't know they were psychics, able to predict all future circumstances and commit to a response. I thought you elected someone on the basis of a few key issues, where they stand in the political/social spectrum, and the quality of their thought processes, and then entrust them with the responsibility to handle unanticipated issues consistent with those ideals. Gosh, I guess those Tarot cards really do work.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you sure you're from TO and not MQ? You think very French. (hint, that is not intended as a compliment).

[/ QUOTE ]

This baseless personal attack is supposed to help your argument? Please refrain if you want to engage in a discussion with me.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A grass-roots effort would be MADD convincing voters to vote for DUI legislation. MADD trying to convince an already elected official to introduce a law that was not part of their election platform is not democratic. It's not the representative's place to decide what's best for their constituents: it's the representative's place to do what the constituents tell him/her to do. Not what MADD tells him/her to do.


[/ QUOTE ]

MADD is simply an organization formed to present the opinions of the rep's constiuents. It most certainly is the rep's responsibility to weigh those opinions against conflicting views of others in his consituency and decide on behalf of the entire constituency.

[/ QUOTE ]

No - the constituents already did the weighting of opinions for him in the election. This after-the-fact intervention of a lobbyist group can only serve to get the constituent to do something other than what he was mandated to do. This is a flaw in the representative democracy model, not a desirable characteristic of democracy.

[ QUOTE ]
Democracy is not just a indiviudal voices trying to be heard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh really? Why do we have a vote then?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You think wrong. When did MADD decide to be my moral advocate? I didn't elect MADD to office: if they want me to vote for their platform they should talk to me. Circumventing me and going right to my representative is not democratic.



[/ QUOTE ]

MADD isn't circumventing anything. If your representative doesn't take into account opposing views it is his failure, not an undemocratic process.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "weighting of opposing views" is the role of the voters in a democracy. Once they've made their decision and tallied their vote, the consideration is over. The government's role is to enact those decisions, not to reconsider whether or not the voters were right or wrong and then act unilaterally.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The representative is there to do what he/she said she would do when elected, not what the corporations say they should do now.



[/ QUOTE ]
ORLY? During the election process every single issue that could possibly come before a candidate is discussed and his position made known and immutable?

[/ QUOTE ]

It must, not because we can see into the future, but because if the government is allowed to claim "changing circumstances" whenever they want and enact whatever laws they want while in term without measuring if those laws represent the will of the majority, then that is not a democracy. It may be an accurate description of the sham of a democracy the U.S. practices, but to say this "democracy in action" is patently wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't know they were psychics, able to predict all future circumstances and commit to a response. I thought you elected someone on the basis of a few key issues, where they stand in the political/social spectrum, and the quality of their thought processes, and then entrust them with the responsibility to handle unanticipated issues consistent with those ideals.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're still making an "argument" that since the U.S. claims to be Democractic Justice Freedom Land that whatever is done in the U.S. is democracy. The reason lobbyists are almost universally detested is that they rob the population of the democracy they're supposed to have by making/enabling representatives to enact laws contrary to what the majority wants. You need to unravel what you think democracy should be and what a particular democratic state is.

[ QUOTE ]
Gosh, I guess those Tarot cards really do work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh. Not an argument.

[elwoodblues]

What you seem to be advocating is something more akin to a direct democracy than a representative one. I don't know where you get the notion that once elected Congressmen are bound by what their constitutents tell them to do. People elect representatives to make judgement calls on issues that may have not been contemplated at the time of the election. They are elected based on known information/beliefs with the hope that, based on their core beliefs, they will act in certain ways -- but there is no guarantee of that.