Lobbyists Are Too Powerful Because Government Is Too Powerful
From the Libertarian party's Mark Hinkle:
"President Obama is currently caught in a bit of a scandal over his pledge not to take campaign money from lobbyists."According to the New York Times, 'Despite a pledge not to take money from lobbyists, President Obama has relied on prominent supporters who are active in the lobbying industry to raise millions of dollars for his re-election bid.'
"It's unfortunate that the president has added one more to his pile of broken promises. But it's not at all surprising.
"Our government has far too much power and money at its disposal. The inevitable consequence is that businesses, organizations, and individuals will work very hard to guide that power and money in their own favor.
"In fact, it often seems like politicians intentionally create incentives for people to try to bribe them.
"Businesses especially will fight for more corporate welfare, and also for regulations that stifle potential competitors. What choice do they have? If they don't fight for those special government favors, then someone else will, which will put them at an increasing disadvantage, and might drive them out of business.
..."I have to remind myself, lobbying isn't essentially a bad thing. It's an expression of our right to 'petition the government for a redress of grievances.' It provides information to politicians. But when politicians get in the habit of handing out favors, you can bet everyone is going to run up to the trough.
"The only way to reduce the power of lobbyists is to reduce the power of government. That choice rests with the voters. If voters keep electing Democrats and Republicans, then the power of government and lobbyists will continue to grow. If voters start electing Libertarians, things will change."
The day I have a Libertarian candidate to vote for that doesn't sound like a crackpot, I'll vote for him or her.
Jim P. at November 5, 2011 7:07 AM
() Politicians signal that they can be influenced (bought) through campaign contributions, and even more direct help.
() Businesses offer that support in exchange for presenting their concerns (access, demands) to the politicians.
() The politicians write crafty, detailed, involved "law" that just happens to qualify only those businesses which paid for access (did the buying).
() Much of the public looks at this situation and concludes "Those darn businessmen are corrupting our innocent politicians. The world will only become better when we crush the businessmen."
() The OWS movement goes further, proclaiming that we must remove decisions about investment and production from businessmen, and instead give this additional power to the innocent politicians.
Our brains evolved to predict when fruit would ripen on the tree. They seem to be very good at that purpose, but a bit strained when applied to other problems.
Andrew_M_Garland at November 5, 2011 1:49 PM
Well if the OWS keeps going the way it is we may end up with some good capitalists out of it.
Just look at the whining kitchen staff complaining about feeding the freeloader homeless.
Jim P. at November 5, 2011 2:28 PM
Much of the public looks at this situation and concludes "Those darn businessmen are corrupting our innocent politicians. The world will only become better when we crush the businessmen."
Nonsense. What a tidy bit of hackery, Andrew. A small fraction of the public wants to crush business. Most just want fair rules and a reasonably honest government that isn't owned entirely by those with deep pockets.
Much of the public looks at this this situation and thinks that business has far too much influence over public policy. And so their representatives pass, and their president signs into law a bill to lessen the influence of business over politicians.
The bill places some limits on corporate campaign donations and advocacy. And yet, the Supreme Court says, no! Businesses are people, and have the same free speech rights as people, and we must never limit what they can do in the political sphere. And so, post the Citizens United decision, the flow of money from businesses into political campaigns and PACs is free to become a deluge, and fewer organizations must even account for where their funding comes from. The American people - particularly the newly expended definition of people - of course, should rejoice at this outcome, because the First Amendment rights of people are protected, and have ever-greater confidence that politicians are working in their best interests.
Christopher at November 5, 2011 4:13 PM
"Most just want fair rules and a reasonably honest government that isn't owned entirely by those with deep pockets."
As long as the govenrment has the power to do all the stuff it currently does, this will never happen. The only way to get that result is to limit the power of government such that there is no benefit in trying to buy politicians.
The downside of this is that you ("you" in general- not directed at any particular poster) don't get to use the government anymore as a nanny to force people to do the kinds of things you think they should be doing (for their own good, of course).
Not Sure at November 5, 2011 4:43 PM
Sometimes our lobbyist is just someone who asks the government to please stop hurting us. A government that cared about the constitutional limits would not be able to inflict such capricious and arbitrary pain.
Today's Libertarian moment makes sense, but if i agree out loud they'll immediately ask me to sign the petition to legalized heroine, homemade nerve gas and full-auto puppy throwers.
Storm Saxon's Gall Bladder at November 5, 2011 4:50 PM
"A small fraction of the public wants to crush business. Most just want fair rules..."
What, specifically, is the difference between those two things?
"...a reasonably honest government that isn't owned entirely by those with deep pockets."
You missed the point of the article. When government has unlimited power, "a reasonably honest government" is impossible. If one group of people is banned from participating in the political process, another group will move into the vacuum.
You are aware, of course, that Citizens United also applies to labor unions. Should they also be banned from making participating in political activity? What about non-profits and NGO's? So okay, we could in theory ban all organizations of any kind from making political donations. But then there will still be wealthier people who can afford to make bigger political donations, and less-well-off people can't pool their donations for more impact because we just banned that. So now what? If you're in the top 10th percentile in income, are you banned from making donations? Now we're pretty much back where we started with Citizens United. How would this not constitute an abridgement of First Amendment rights?
Cousin Dave at November 5, 2011 5:26 PM
Christopher says: "Nonsense. What a tidy bit of hackery, Andrew." Leading with an insult doesn't improve your argument. Try to challenge the ideas, not the person.
Citizens United did not change the rules for corporate contributions to political campaigns. Corporations can't contribute.
What they can do, more freely now after Citizens United, is buy advertising which actually mentions politicians along with policies. This gives the average corporation (a collection of people) the same rights as the corporations called "media companies", like the New York Times.
Andrew_M_Garland at November 5, 2011 6:52 PM
Andrew, sorry for not being more clear: the part of your post that I criticized was hackery because your characterization of other people was dishonest. The number of people who think politicians to be innocent people is basically zero, as is the number of people who wish to crush business. Textbook strawman argument.
Christopher at November 5, 2011 7:38 PM
What a tidy bit of hackery, Andrew. A small fraction of the public wants to crush business. Most just want fair rules and a reasonably honest government that isn't owned entirely by those with deep pockets.
Just because the game is rigged doesnt make it the fault of those who play
And Andrew, what I would suggest as far as politcal campaaigns go. Kill the primaries, kill the parties. Individals all get the same amount of cash and 3 hours of air time on the big three for their campaigin ads.
Roll back the 12th amendment, and as for campaign contributions - all cash donations go to a general fund to be equally distributed. You want freedom of speech? Use your voice, not your cash and feel free to work as an unpaid vollenteer making calls or going door to door with pamphlets
lujlp at November 5, 2011 8:01 PM
Sorry that second paragraph was for cousin Dave
lujlp at November 5, 2011 8:10 PM
You are aware, of course, that Citizens United also applies to labor unions. Should they also be banned from making participating in political activity? What about non-profits and NGO's? So okay, we could in theory ban all organizations of any kind from making political donations.
I'd prefer that all organizations be banned from political donations as organizations: unions, corporations, non-profits, churches, NGOs, etc. If their members want to contribute, then fine. If they want to encourage their members to contribute, fine (as long as the organization does not fund those contributions). But they get no voice outside of people who actually can vote.
Christopher at November 5, 2011 8:17 PM
Christopher,
How do you distinguish between the New York Times publishing "news" and opinion about politicians and issues, as compared other corporations? What gives "media corporations" the right to speak about politics, but not other corporations?
Again, corporations are currently barred from giving to political campaigns. Citizens United allows all corporations to speak to the public.
Andrew_M_Garland at November 5, 2011 10:11 PM
Andrew: glad to see you don't dispute that your characterization of those who disagree with you in your earlier post was a strawman argument. That's solid. Most people want to nitpick those kinds og things.
What gives "media corporations" the right to speak about politics, but not other corporations?
Hmmm. I dunno, maybe I'm reaching but, I'd probably say that there was a constitutional amendment that regarding freedom of the press...
Christopher at November 5, 2011 10:39 PM
Is free air time on The Big Three really representative of paid political discourse? And which 3 is that?
Sam at November 5, 2011 11:00 PM
ABC NBC CBS, and three hours is 360 30 second spots.
lujlp at November 6, 2011 2:59 AM
How about this -- a political campaign, outside the presidency, cannot accept any donations outside of the zip codes in its jurisdiction?
A corporation, union, etc. cannot run issue ads outside of its state of incorporation?
That would be a reasonable limit. It would give the corporation a voice, but at the same time limit the influence their effect to a single district.
Jim P. at November 6, 2011 5:26 AM
Addressing several things from different commenters:
From luj:
"And Andrew, what I would suggest as far as politcal campaaigns go. Kill the primaries, kill the parties. Individals all get the same amount of cash and 3 hours of air time on the big three for their campaigin ads."
I don't think it's workable. Even if you succeed in killing off the existing Democratic and Republican organizations, how do you prevent the formation of new political parties? After all, the First Amendment does have that freedom-of-assembly thing in it. As for the air time, what is the vetting process going to be? If there isn't one, you'll have tens of thousands of candidates signing up for their free money and TV time. There won't be enough TV hours in a year for everyone who wants to run.
From Christopher:
"I'd prefer that all organizations be banned from political donations as organizations: unions, corporations, non-profits, churches, NGOs, etc. If their members want to contribute, then fine."
Doesn't solve the problem that it claims to solve: rich people will still have more money to spend. Yes, you can set a contribution limit, but no matter how low you make that limit, there will still be people who can't afford to donate that much; hence better-off people will still have more "influence" then the less well off. Where this leads to is saying "Ok, well, then the top XX% in income are banned from making any contributions", but that stomps all over a bunch of parts of the Constitution.
"Hmmm. I dunno, maybe I'm reaching but, I'd probably say that there was a constitutional amendment that regarding freedom of the press..."
That phrase doesn't mean what a lot of people think it means. It's a freedom to publish, not an establishment of a government-sanctioned media. What's to stop General Electric from starting up the GE Times, and using it to endorse candidates and commenting on issues? How are you going to stop it, without dividing corporations into privileged and non-privileged categories?
From Jim P:
"A corporation, union, etc. cannot run issue ads outside of its state of incorporation?"
Many corporations do business outside of their states of incorporation. In order to do that, they have agents in those states. Are corporate agents going to be prohibited from commenting on politics in their states, even though they are subject to the jurisdiction of these states?
The upshot of all these: Trying to restrict the ability of certain parties to participate in politics Just. Isn't. Going. To. Work. And the attempts to do so do huge violence to the Constitution. Further, in this day and age, I'm not at all convinced that it's necessary or does any good. If a corporation is sponsoring political ads or making big donations to candidates, it will take Internet muckrakers about five minutes to uncover that fact. Then, people who see the ads or hear the candidate can know where the money is coming from, and make their own judgements on that fact.
Finally, there's a component to this that is purely partisan: the widespread belief among those on the left half of the political spectrum that corporate money is hugely and disproportionately benefiting Republicans. All the data I've seen says it isn't so... if anything, corporate donations overall slightly favor Democrats. And, there is the fact that money donated by labor unions overwhelmingly favors Democrats, which the mainstream media seldom comments on.
Cousin Dave at November 6, 2011 8:44 AM
That be a small step in the right direction, of couse you'd have people claiming that they have a right to wiegh in on and influence other jusridictions elections as issues of property tax, police density, sales tax etc impact them in various non direct ways
lujlp at November 6, 2011 10:01 AM
Christopher,
You mistake your own importance. I don't find it necessary to respond to every one of your comments. Not responding is not the same as agreeing, as you would certainly apply to your own non-responses.
You adopt a dismissive tone when answering any question. That doesn't improve your argument.
Your response to my question shows constrained, literal thinking. Do you believe that the constitutional freedom of speech only applies to companies which own a printing press? Well, that standard is easy enough to comply with. Any company which wants to publish can buy a printing press. Do you have other requirements for treating all corporations equally?
Andrew_M_Garland at November 6, 2011 12:48 PM
The answer would be "Establish a residence or regional HQ in our community," and you can comment or donate as you desire. If a business had to establish 435 regional HQ's they would would have to consider it. Some would, some would shrink from the task.
But having a company responsive to the local community is not wrong.
Jim P. at November 6, 2011 1:38 PM
> How about this -- a political campaign, outside
> the presidency, cannot accept any donations
> outside of the zip codes in its jurisdiction?
Sounds great, seriously... But it's another rule. There are, I'm certain, already networks of lobbyists in each state capital.
Amy's got the theme here precisely correct. Money follows power. As all these terrifically well-intentioned lefties and goofballs continue to cede ever-more authority to our central-most government, that's where the worst corruption will happen.
(Links later)
And it's why I'm so pissed off that Welch and Gillespie thrive in OUR NATION'S CAPITAL... It's like a heartless joke.
Crid at November 6, 2011 3:47 PM
pic
Crid at November 6, 2011 5:15 PM
Link">http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-19/beltway-earnings-make-u-s-capital-richer-than-silicon-valley.html">Link 1
Link 2
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 6, 2011 8:08 PM
Sorry, bad HTML.
Obama gets more money from Wall Street than anyone.
And they do better than they did under Bush.
That's the Washington Post, OK? Not those nasties at Fox.
When you voted for Obama, is that what you had in mind?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 6, 2011 8:16 PM
How do you distinguish between the New York Times publishing "news" and opinion about politicians and issues, as compared other corporations?
Because that's what they do and were organized for? To gather and publish news and related information?
Doesn't solve the problem that it claims to solve: rich people will still have more money to spend. Yes, you can set a contribution limit, but no matter how low you make that limit, there will still be people who can't afford to donate that much
I'm not trying to make the voice of the rich the same as that of the poor. I just want our political process to be controlled by those who can vote. Unions, corporations, and so on, don't get to be involved in the process beyond the degree to which they can influence (but not compel) their members.
Not responding is not the same as agreeing
You have not been asked to agree to anything, merely to defend your previous statement; you are not able to do so, it appears.
Do you believe that the constitutional freedom of speech only applies to companies which own a printing press?
Freedom of speech applies to people. People may say what they will, within the limits of that doctrine. Corporations are not people, and their speech is subject to reasonable limits.
Christopher at November 6, 2011 10:33 PM
Christopher,
The central point in Citizens United is that people do not lose their rights to free speech merely because they act through a corporation. It is exactly because people direct corporations that their actions through the ccorporate form deserve free speech protection.
Your idea of a corporation is stuck in the 17th century. At that time, they could only do what their charter authorized. That restriction has fallen away in more modern times.
A corporation can publish to the public without getting special dispensation from the state or from Christopher.
Andrew_M_Garland at November 8, 2011 10:07 AM
Leave a comment