this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2024
137 points (96.6% liked)
Asklemmy
43945 readers
669 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Lobbying and lobbyist groups.
Lobbying in and of itself isn't bad, it makes our politicians aware of issues and alternatives.
Unrestricted lobbying is the problem, I recently read that lobbyists from Amazon would no longer have access cards to the European parliament so they no longer could come and go as they liked.
I just wonder why lobbyists ever got that access in the first place...
Owning shares when you are an elected official with jurisdiction over the industry you own shares in.
Also, any political figure owning shares in a media organisation, regardless of whether it is traditional media or βnew mediaβ.
God the nerds in here are annoying.
"Ackchually banning lobbying would mean nobody could talk to politicians anymore blah blah..."
Everyone knows what you mean when you say that lobbying should be illegal.
Could you explain?
Probably the part where they're straight-up bribing politicians to rubber stamp the garbage that ALEC writes.
Lobbying as in "bribery with extra steps" where companies give money to politicians, ask them to do something, then say it's ok because it's "lobbying" and therefore not bribery, but people are coming in and pointing out how lobbying technically just means talking to politicians, but that's not what RotatingParts meant.
Isn't the problem that the "extra steps" are loopholes?
And legal loopholes are like a hydra. Close one and the lawyers will open up two more.
I imagine the line is hard to draw. But of course, the ones doing the drawing of that line are also on the receiving end of the good stuff, so there's incentives to not close those loopholes...
People who don't know anything about lobbying know what you mean when you say lobbying should be illegal.
Banning lobbying would mean no one would be able to talk to a politician/official about an issue. Not even writing your local officials, proposing a local ordinance to making bike lanes or spending money to fix-up/improve a local park. Because that's lobbying. You're asking a government to wield their official power and/or spend public money, for your (and potentially others') benefit.
Even lobbying groups aren't necessarily bad. The Sierra Club, EFF, ACLU. These are American, but I'm sure there are equivalents of these in other countries.
So banning lobbying doesn't really work. Now if you're talking financial contributions and gifts and nice dinners from those who lobby, yeah that probably needs to be more highly regulated or stopped altogether. Generally speaking, any kind of quid pro quo.
But just talking to a politician should not be made illegal. In democracies, talking to people, talking to politicians, and trying to convince them to align with your view is the name of the game.
Does that include unions?
Gonna overturn the 1st Amendment?
"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."
I'm sure there are ways to dial in the abuse, but what legislator is gonna vote for that?