Genuine question about lobbying in US

[someguysomeone]

Why isn't there a maximum cap on how much a single person can lobby to a party. I mean people with wealth having way more influence is a problem. So if we set a cap of 10$ as the maximum amount a single person can lobby.


(Who you lobbied for would be completely anonymous)
Parties would be forced to gain public support to run there ad campaigns instead of support of corporations.
Then you can set up single transferable vote.
The lobbying one seems kind of obvious i am just curious why i have never seen a you-tube video talking about it.
So is there a an actual reason instead of general corruption.

It would be way more effective than a cap on election spending cause it would directly decrease how much corporations have say in making of laws.

If you want to lobby for a particular law then go pay your 10 $ and you have lobbied for it. Simple and direct.

 

[Agentt]

I don't know much about politics, but that money is considered as 'donations'. Hence, you can't put a cap on it.

 

[someguysomeone]

In India lobbying is not that bad cause if you lobby everything about deal has to be legally put online . The other parties would just make the fact that you got lobbied(and hence are corrupt) as first page of there ad campaign.
I think. I am not really sure how much it's prevalent.

 

[TunTun]

This is a known issue. Which is hard to fix because both sides take corporate money

 

[TheTrinary]

Simply put, the one's making the rules are the ones taking bribes– I mean lobbying. It's a problem and it's very much a case of one step forward two steps back.

That's a simplified answer and there's A LOT more to it as it developed from WWII, but there it is.

 

[KiraMinoru]

Why isn't there a maximum cap on how much a single person can lobby to a party. I mean people with wealth having way more influence is a problem. So if we set a cap of 10$ as the maximum amount a single person can lobby.


(Who you lobbied for would be completely anonymous)
Parties would be forced to gain public support to run there ad campaigns instead of support of corporations.
Then you can set up single transferable vote.
The lobbying one seems kind of obvious i am just curious why i have never seen a you-tube video talking about it.
So is there a an actual reason instead of general corruption.

It would be way more effective than a cap on election spending cause it would directly decrease how much corporations have say in making of laws.

If you want to lobby for a particular law then go pay your 10 $ and you have lobbied for it. Simple and direct.

Rich people will just get creative with how they donate even if you cap it.

 

[someguysomeone]

Rich people will just get creative with how they donate even if you cap it.

how. It's anonymous. They can't force all of there company to donate. They won't have anyway of knowing who donated.

 

[KiraMinoru]

how. It's anonymous. They can't force all of there company to donate. They won't have anyway of knowing who donated.

It doesn’t need to be directly in the form of money. It can be in forms of material gifts(which could then be sold or directly used for their campaign), publicity, transportation, etc.

Maybe they just drop $10 on the ground a couple thousand times in random locations and people in that person’s party “mysteriously” find it and bring it to the police. After a certain amount of time if no one comes to claim it as being theirs the person who found it can keep it.

 

[someguysomeone]

It doesn’t need to be directly in the form of money. It can be in forms of material gifts(which could then be sold or directly used for their campaign), publicity, transportation, etc.

Maybe they just drop $10 on the ground a couple thousand times in random locations and people in that person’s party “mysteriously” find it and bring it to the police. After a certain amount of time if no one comes to claim it as being theirs the person who found it can keep it.

that's literally bribery. It would be just easier to bribe .

 

[uenala]

"Lobbying" in the US typically refers to money spent on influencing decisions in government for a specific purpose. It typically doesn't involve direct payments to legislators, and more commonly comes in the form of interest groups sending large delegations of professional advocates to Congress to try to convince politicians to do something. When you hear that a pharmaceutical company spent $X million on lobbying Congress, that $X million is spent on hiring famous/influential/experts/lawyers in the field to talk to politicians, and doesn't usually involve a direct payment to the legislators.

An example of "lobbying" is a pharmaceutical company paying $5 million to the former director of WHO (i.e. an "expert" individual who isn't part of the government) to testify on the Senate floor that decreasing the patent length on drugs will make new antibiotics too expensive for pharmaceutical companies to develop, which will result in a worldwide antibiotic resistance crisis.

The payment often doesn't go directly into the hands of government officials, making it difficult to track.

What OP is referring to is campaign finance laws, which in the US are called "donations" or "campaign contributions" (rather than "lobbying"). There are actually federal contribution limits (see Wikipedia), meaning there is actually a maximum on the amount that an individual or organization can donate.

The issue is that despite these explicit rules, there are many roundabout ways that an interest group / corporation can leverage their money. An example for this is that a company can spend $100,000 to help run a fundraiser to raise money for Candidate X. Candidate X doesn't receive the $100,000, but the fundraiser will encourage other people to donate to Candidate X, meaning that it kind of indirectly causes money to flow to Candidate X. You can think of it as a company paying other people to donate to Candidate X.

 

[someguysomeone]

"Lobbying" in the US typically refers to money spent on influencing decisions in government for a specific purpose. It typically doesn't involve direct payments to legislators, and more commonly comes in the form of interest groups sending large delegations of professional advocates to Congress to try to convince politicians to do something. When you hear that a pharmaceutical company spent $X million on lobbying Congress, that $X million is spent on hiring famous/influential/experts/lawyers in the field to talk to politicians, and doesn't usually involve a direct payment to the legislators.

An example of "lobbying" is a pharmaceutical company paying $5 million to the former director of WHO (i.e. an "expert" individual who isn't part of the government) to testify on the Senate floor that decreasing the patent length on drugs will make new antibiotics too expensive for pharmaceutical companies to develop, which will result in a worldwide antibiotic resistance crisis.

The payment often doesn't go directly into the hands of government officials, making it difficult to track.

What OP is referring to is campaign finance laws, which in the US are called "donations" or "campaign contributions" (rather than "lobbying"). There are actually federal contribution limits (see Wikipedia), meaning there is actually a maximum on the amount that an individual or organization can donate.

The issue is that despite these explicit rules, there are many roundabout ways that an interest group / corporation can leverage their money. An example for this is that a company can spend $100,000 to help run a fundraiser to raise money for Candidate X. Candidate X doesn't receive the $100,000, but the fundraiser will encourage other people to donate to Candidate X, meaning that it kind of indirectly causes money to flow to Candidate X. You can think of it as a company paying other people to donate to Candidate X.

thanks .
Though how are these people able to convince the politicians if they don't pay them. Is it implicitly implied that if they support this issue then the ad campaign the company ran for there product or policy would include the names of politicians as supporting the issue

 

[uenala]

In India lobbying is not that bad cause if you lobby everything about deal has to be legally put online . The other parties would just make the fact that you got lobbied(and hence are corrupt) as first page of there ad campaign.
I think. I am not really sure how much it's prevalent.

We have this in the US as well.

Every single donation made to a political candidate is tracked and you can see it at: https://www.fec.gov/data/

Basically you can look up anyone you want, and you can actually see every single individual or organization who donated to them (and how much).

You can also see what each campaign spent their money on down to every receipt...

 

[someguysomeone]

We have this in the US as well.

Every single donation made to a political candidate is tracked and you can see it at: https://www.fec.gov/data/

Basically you can look up anyone you want, and you can actually see every single individual or organization who donated to them (and how much).

You can also see what each campaign spent their money on down to every receipt...

do people who lobby only talk to politicians or is there some implication when they talk which influences the politicians.
For example
(A company made a ad for a policy. They ran that ad on TV. Then if the politician supports the policy they would get there name mentioned in the ad.)
(or if you support us on this issue then we would convince the populace to donate for you)

Does lobbying happen this way or there is no implication and companies just convince the politicians that this is what the public wants

 

[TunTun]

We have this in the US as well.

Every single donation made to a political candidate is tracked and you can see it at: https://www.fec.gov/data/

Basically you can look up anyone you want, and you can actually see every single individual or organization who donated to them (and how much).

You can also see what each campaign spent their money on down to every receipt...

Hey welcome to the forum. To add to your post, OP might want to look into Citizens United and Super Pacts

 

[someguysomeone]

Ok another question. How are politicians influenced by the lobbyist in concrete terms. What are the rewards which lobbyist offer if the politician supports for them.

 

[uenala]

do people who lobby only talk to politicians or is there some implication when they talk which influences the politicians.
For example
(A company made a ad for a policy. They ran that ad on TV. Then if the politician supports the policy they would get there name mentioned in the ad.)
(or if you support us on this issue then we would convince the populace to donate for you)

Does lobbying happen this way or there is no implication and companies just convince the politicians that this is what the public wants

Well, contrary to popular perception, there's not very much direct bribery (at least in the form of donations/contributions) because US law addresses this and it's closely monitored/tracked by the FEC.

There are more insidious things like revolving doors. An example of a revolving door is when a company promises a politician a cushy job at their company with a multimillion dollar salary in the future after they finish their 4-year term in the government. In other words, it's like a corporation promising to pay lots of money (or other benefits) in the future.

A lot of politicians make their money after they retire from government. >.<

But that's just one example.

Lobbying is extremely complex, and many organizations carry a lot of weight.

Though how are these people able to convince the politicians if they don't pay them. Is it implicitly implied that if they support this issue then the ad campaign the company ran for there product or policy would include the names of politicians as supporting the issue

Endorsements and other things are valuable.

Suppose that the CEO of the NFL (American Football League) makes a phone call to Candidate X.

The NFL has like millions of viewers, so obviously anything that the NFL puts on television has a big impact on voters. As a result, Candidate X does care a lot about things that powerful people and organizations say. You also have athletes making political statements these days, as well as their athletic associations also taking positions.

The other thing is that it's not just corporations who lobby congress.

Unions and professional organizations also spend a lot of money lobbying, such as the Teachers Union or the American Medical Association.

 

[WasatchWind]

In any kind of system that allows more freedoms, I'd imagine that you'd get some kind of annoying lobbying. If not hard liquid cash (or trading of stocks) you'd have the owner of a company do something like "invite" a politician on a lavish vacation.

But I dunno I know so little of politics and I don't like thinking about it.

 

[someguysomeone]

Well, contrary to popular perception, there's not very much direct bribery (at least in the form of donations/contributions) because US law addresses this and it's closely monitored/tracked by the FEC.

There are more insidious things like revolving doors. An example of a revolving door is when a company promises a politician a cushy job at their company with a multimillion dollar salary in the future after they finish their 4-year term in the government. In other words, it's like a corporation promising to pay lots of money (or other benefits) in the future.

A lot of politicians make their money after they retire from government. >.<

But that's just one example.

Lobbying is extremely complex, and many organizations carry a lot of weight.


Endorsements and other things are valuable.

Suppose that the CEO of the NFL (American Football League) makes a phone call to Candidate X.

The NFL has like millions of viewers, so obviously anything that the NFL puts on television has a big impact on voters. As a result, Candidate X does care a lot about things that powerful people and organizations say. You also have athletes making political statements these days, as well as their athletic associations also taking positions.

The other thing is that it's not just corporations who lobby congress.

Unions and professional organizations also spend a lot of money lobbying, such as the Teachers Union or the American Medical Association.

Make senses. People trade favors and make friendship with promise to help each other by jobs or contracts later instead of direct cash.
Also I really need to learn humility cause i actually thought that people literally pay each other in cash and no one has put a ban on it yet even though i could think of solution in 10 seconds.

Really the things i need to learn is paitence and that i know too less about anything and most importantly other random people(not people who just study that topic) may know more than me and i should just ask.

 

[uenala]

Make senses. People trade favors and make friendship with promise to help each other by jobs or contracts later instead of direct cash.
Also I really need to learn humility cause i actually thought that people literally pay each other in cash and no one has put a ban on it yet even though i could think of solution in 10 seconds.

Really the things i need to learn is paitence and that i know too less about anything and most importantly other random people(not people who just study that topic) may know more than me and i should just ask.

I still think it's a fair sentiment and definitely something that a lot of people wish could be better! There's bipartisan support for campaign finance reform and it's always good if people are invested in ways to fight corruption.

Like @TunTun mentioned above, the main controversy in US campaign finance law is Super PACs, which is an independent organization that isn't directly affiliated with a politician campaigning for something. Super PACs don't have donation limits, and in recent years, the large amount of advertising money spent during elections is done by super PACs.

The reason why Super PACs exist (per the Citizens United court case), mainly stems from a freedom of speech argument. Assuming that I'm not directly coordinating with a politician, as an independent individual I can spend millions of dollars running my own ads on television for any purpose. A lot of anti-abortion ads or global warming ads are produced by Super PACs, many of which aren't directly affiliated with a particular candidate.

Television ads for a particular candidate in the US typically end with "I'm Donald Trump and I endorse this message" (<--- this line can't be said in a super PAC television ad, because it would indicate the the candidate helped produce the ad, and super PACs aren't allowed to coordinate with political candidates)

 

[someguysomeone]

I still think it's a fair sentiment and definitely something that a lot of people wish could be better! There's bipartisan support for campaign finance reform and it's always good if people are invested in ways to fight corruption.

Like @TunTun mentioned above, the main controversy in US campaign finance law is Super PACs, which is an independent organization that isn't directly affiliated with a politician campaigning for something. Super PACs don't have donation limits, and in recent years, the large amount of advertising money spent during elections is done by super PACs.

The reason why Super PACs exist (per the Citizens United court case), mainly stems from a freedom of speech argument. Assuming that I'm not directly coordinating with a politician, as an independent individual I can spend millions of dollars running my own ads on television for any purpose. A lot of anti-abortion ads or global warming ads are produced by Super PACs, many of which aren't directly affiliated with a particular candidate.

Television ads for a particular candidate in the US typically end with "I'm Donald Trump and I endorse this message" (<--- this line can't be said in a super PAC television ad, because it would indicate the the candidate helped produce the ad, and super PACs aren't allowed to coordinate with political candidates)

Most problems in US arise from people not being taught logical fallacies and how to read scientific studies and statistics and scientific method.
People are just not taught how to gather information. Also another problem is that there is a really really huge monopoly on scientific studies of a few big corporations. So people are forced to read second hand shit.

If everyone knew how to spot logical fallacies. If everyone knew the scientefic method and which assumptions to take and which razors to use. If everyone knew what is p value and peer review to test validity of studies. None of these problems would happen cause people won't be easily influenced.
You guys need to remove Shakespeare ,geography and lot of history and focus more on these subjects. They are just more useful.

By the way
b-ok.asia (works on firefox)
http://zlibraryexau2g3p.onion (only works on tor)is a good website for any books. if you are interested.
https://sci-hub.se for studies and journals
You can live without knowing the exact science if you know the scientific method.