About Rationally Speaking


Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.

Thursday, May 30, 2013

Against lobbying

by Massimo Pigliucci

Recently I’ve had a Twitter “discussion” with my friend Michael DeDora (I know, the meaning of the term here is a bit stretched: think of having discussions on Twitter as analogous to being forced to write Haiku poetry. You will never get the Iliad out of it, but that doesn’t mean it’s all garbage). The topic of the discussion was the morality of lobbying, and it was sparked by my posting a link to this article in the New York Times, reporting that — entirely unsurprisingly, and just as entirely objectionably — lobbyists for large banks are “helping” US legislators write laws about bank regulation... [If I have to explain to you why this is a problem, you may as well not bother reading the rest of this post.]

Michael, who is a lobbyist for the Center for Inquiry, retweeted my tweet, adding a “Hey!” in front of it, in clear protest. [To complicate things, I should disclose that I actually helped Michael find his job at CFI, and am very proud of his career there!] An interesting exchange ensued, during which Michael tried to convince me that lobbying is not just a necessary evil (as I readily admitted, in the specific case of non-profit / non-corporate lobbying), but a positive good for our democracy. Here is why I think he is wrong.

[In what follows I will quote Michael’s objections verbatim, followed by my off-Twitter commentary.]

Michael: I think lobbyists/advocates are necessary no matter how “good” the democracy is, unless it is a form of direct democracy.

Well, no. Democracies have existed for a long time without lobbying, and have worked very well, thank you very much. Indeed, institutionalized lobbying is a recent phenomenon, pretty much exported by the United States, and still relatively young in other Western countries. I’m sure it will spread, but I regard this as yet another case of unfortunate American influence on the rest of the planet, not as something that is necessary for a functional democracy. Michael seems to be assuming that without lobbying organizations the American people would have no way of communicating their priorities and choices to their elected representatives. But this is clearly not the case: not only are said representatives elected (ideally, I know) precisely on the basis of what they explicitly say they will do on behalf of their constituents, but the constituents themselves can (and do) pick up phones, computer keyboards and the like and actually let their representatives know what they want or don’t want. Moreover, it is standard practice for elected officials to go back and visit their districts, and even to periodically conduct polls to assess the priorities of their fellow citizens. So, no, lobbying is not the only alternative to direct democracy. [And by the way, I think direct democracy is a horrible idea, just ask Plato.]

Michael: Elected representatives need to be reminded on daily basis what constituents care about, and to hear from experts on those issues.

I have already taken care of the first part of this argument, but the second part seems to me to mischaracterize what a lobbyist is: lobbyists are not just “experts,” they are advocates of a particular point of view. Yes, they may have expertise on a given subject matter, but that expertise is channeled specifically in the service of a pre-determined agenda. Representatives have other ways to get impartial expert advice (to the extent that impartiality is possible on political matters, of course). First off, they have paid staff whose purpose is precisely to provide them with background research on whatever issue they are suppose to be legislating. They can also ask their staff to contact, say, academic experts or organizations (like the National Academy of Sciences) to provide them with the needed perspective. Going to a lobbyist for education is like going to your bank for financial advice. Wanna bet they’ll tell you that their products are the best on the market?

Michael: Ideally citizens would be educated and engaged — your “good” democracy — but they still need guidance, support, representation.

Right, which is why we have, ahem, representatives who are supposed to also lead our country in better directions (whether they do it or not is, of course, another matter). Of course, Michael is thinking largely of his own type of activity with CFI, which I do think is — unfortunately — necessary. But recall that the exchange began with an article about corporate lobbying on behalf of banks. Do banks (or any other corporation or industry) really need “guidance, support, representation”? I think not.

Michael: American democracy is enormous; there are many groups which are underrepresented in the political process for whatever reasons.

This is a good point, though again, hard to imagine banks as qualifying here. More broadly, my objection to lobbying is based on the reality that groups who can pay for it get privileged access to legislators. The groups Michael is concerned about, ironically, are the least likely to get such access, because they typically have the smallest budgets. Wanna compare what CFI spends on his activities in Washington with what, say, the oil industry does? Besides, let’s think about exactly what it means for groups to be underrepresented in the political process. People of different genders, ethnicities, religious affiliations, political ideologies, and so forth, all get precisely one vote when it comes to electing representatives. Of course this does not automatically translate into equal representation, but that’s because of problems with the electoral process (e.g., disenfranchisement of minorities and the poor), lack of education, and so forth. Those are certainly problems worth addressing, as they are structural and truly fundamental to a viable democracy, but they have little to do with lobbying per se.

Michael: Special group = constituents. How do you view efforts of Secular Coalition, CFI-OPP, NSCE, Americans United? Necessary evil?

That’s right, that is precisely how I see them. And no, groups do not equate to constituents, but to particular types of constituents, usually with deep pockets and a resulting unbalanced access to Congress (see above).

Michael: Citizens have always formed groups based on shared social/political goals, partially in order to attain better democracy.

Indeed, as they should. But my objection isn’t to social advocacy in general, or organizing in support of social causes, and so on. It is specifically about lobbying, as defined above.

Michael: Define “the rest of the world.” There are activists/lobbyists all over Europe.

Yes, there are. But first off, there is a difference — again — between activists and lobbyists. Second, even a document [download] that Michael himself shared during the course of our Twitter conversation makes my point. The report in question essentially says that the only countries were there are registered (meaning: officially recognized as part of the way the government operates) lobbyists in the Western world are the US, Canada, and Germany. In all other countries, of course, there are people and organizations that try to influence the legislative process, but do not have regulated privileged access to the legislators. Indeed, the report mentions the case of the UK, which I think is one from which the US could learn: “The UK, on the other hand, has opted to regulate the lobbied rather than the lobbyists.” In other words, the focus should be on regulating the legislators and prevent privileged access to them by any group, an approach that hardly diminishes people’s rights to organize in support of their causes.

Michael: I think we need to differentiate between corporate-focused lobbyists (e.g., banks) and issue-focused lobbyists (e.g., church-state).

Indeed we do. Which is why I support CFI but not JPMorgan Chase. Still, it is far too easy for bank (or any other corporation / industry) lobbyists to make the argument that they too are concerned with issues. And being non-profit is hardly a guarantee, as it is all too easy to set up front organizations, like so many Washington “think tanks,” that end up doing the same sort of job that corporate lobbyists do. Once we buy into the idea of legalized privileged access, all bets are off, as far as I’m concerned, and democracy suffers. (I don’t think anyone can reasonably argue that current American democracy is not one of the worst in history, with an unprecedented degree of decoupling between what constituents want and what their alleged representatives actually do. And yes, lobbying is a major factor in this abysmal state of affairs — that and the legalized bribery that is the system of private contributions to re-election campaigns.)

Michael: If anything, it makes the situation worse. By not recognizing and regulating, there is more corruption happening.

Here Michael was responding to my observation that most other Western countries do not recognize lobbyists (see above). Well, this is of course an empirical question, and I’ll await pertinent empirical evidence to settle it. But note one thing: in Italy (for instance) corporations do not have special access nor can they give money to politicians to help elect them. This doesn’t mean that the Italian political system is free from corruption (far from it!). But it does mean that if you are caught engaging in that sort of activity you end up in jail. In the US, by contrast, not only is that sort of blatant bribery legal, but the Supreme Court has even magnified the problem recently under the Constitutional right of freedom of speech! (Yes, I know, strictly speaking campaign contributions are a separate issue from lobbying, though in reality the two are highly connected.)

My exchange with Michael ended up on the positive note that we’ll both look into empirical evidence for specific claims and revisit the topic. As one of my followers, Josh Bunting, ironically put it: “I was hoping this would end with ‘USA! USA! USA!’ instead of ‘I'll do some research and get back to you.’” How disappointing indeed.

[Note: I have invited Michael to respond to this post, if he feels so inclined. I hope he will, it’s an important conversation to have, particularly with someone like him, who has actual experience of lobbying from the inside.]

40 comments:

  1. Democracies have existed for a long time without lobbying, and have worked very well, thank you very much. Indeed, institutionalized lobbying is a recent phenomenon, pretty much exported by the United States, and still relatively young in other Western countries.

    Can you prove this assertion? I would tend to agree with Michael here:

    Citizens have always formed groups based on shared social/political goals

    The crux of the issue, imho, is: how can you define what is (good, acceptable) free speech and expression of one's viewpoint, and what is (bad, unacceptable) lobbying?

    You use the phrase "institutionalised lobbying" which suggests to me you're already trying to create the distinction here.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think perhaps the word lobby has so much stigma that it's a bit unfairly judged. In the USA sure lobbies have too much power and things need changing, but are any good when used in an appropriate manner? Probably.

    I like the demarcation, the idea of a space where people can be self interested (and you know they are clearly self interested) is useful in political discussion. If you pretend to get rid of self interest by abolishing lobbies it just means it has to get in via the back door via nepotism and corruption.

    "What earns oil companies most money, what makes their jobs easier" is useful information to a politician, it may get undue privilege in some cases but it is an important consideration for ensuring economic success (as balanced with other concerns).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Must agree with Michael de Dora here: Lobbying has always existed (democracy or not) and will always exist, because it simply means interest groups trying to influence the body politic between elections. Some of these interest groups defend your interests, others work against it.

    No, the real problem is the massive concentration of wealth that allows some interest groups to have considerably more resources for lobbying than others. If society were more egalitarian this would be much less of an issue.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I would like to lobby our Democracy right here and now for its or our own very foundation of independence, equality, freedom, or self-evident truth because I think we have gone, been led, or lobbied so terribly astray.

    I think it is time for new evolution, One that takes us forward to where we began, independence. What about you Professor, do you think we have lost our Way, our right, our freedom?

    And as for banks, I think it was Jefferson who said: never trust them with your money.

    Thank you for your time,
    Be One,

    =

    ReplyDelete
  5. For a long time Microsoft abstained from lobbying and political spending, so the government retaliated with an antitrust prosecution, and now it does significant amounts of both.

    ReplyDelete
  6. crasshopper,

    > I would tend to agree with Michael here: Citizens have always formed groups based on shared social/political goals <

    I think you and Michael are confusing advocacy with lobbying. The latter is a formal of legal privileged access to legislators, up to and including the ability to draw draft bills on behalf of legislators. Hard to believe how that doesn’t cross the line, however fuzzy the latter may be.

    downquark,

    > If you pretend to get rid of self interest by abolishing lobbies it just means it has to get in via the back door via nepotism and corruption. <

    Again, the citizens’ interested are *already* represented in a, ahem, representative democracy. Why do particular group (often powerful corporate groups actually *opposed* to public interest) need special access?

    Alex,

    > Lobbying has always existed (democracy or not) and will always exist, because it simply means interest groups trying to influence the body politic between elections. <

    I think you are wrong. As usual with demarcation issues, I take the conservative view, and you tend to expand the meaning of terms until they don’t meaning anything at all... ;-)

    > the real problem is the massive concentration of wealth that allows some interest groups to have considerably more resources for lobbying than others. If society were more egalitarian this would be much less of an issue. <

    I agree. One way to push it that way is to prohibit to corporate lobbyes to draft legislation on behalf of themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think characterizing it as lobbying vs non-lobbying is to miss the point.

    The real dichotomy is representative democracy vs participative democracy. We know what representative democracy is, we periodically elect our representatives every four or so years and they go off and do their job with minimal influence from us until the next election cycle. That was a necessary consequence of communication, travel and time constraints.

    Participatory democracy opens up the system to make our representatives accessible, accountable and responsive to the electorate in between election events. Modern technology is making this possible but it remains more a goal than a reality.

    The problem is that business has got there first, are better funded, better organized and are aggressively exploiting the opportunities that participatory democracy offers.

    The evil is not in participatory democracy, it is rather in the fact that business are better at using it to their advantage.

    I am hopeful that, over time, the rest of civil society will become better at using the opportunities that participatory democracy offer. In the meantime something has to be done to counteract the huge advantage that business has acquired. I have no idea how that should be done. Perhaps state funding should be made available for citizen lobbying on a district by district basis.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Massimo, you said And by the way, I think direct democracy is a horrible idea

    Can you indicate what you think would be a more workable way of doing things?

    I don't doubt that it is horrible, stuck as I am in the awful democratic sham that is South Africa. It is just that every alternative looks much worse.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I don't think it is unusual for lobbying groups to submit proposed drafts of legislation, nor do I think this bad in and of itself. Obviously, what they prepare is in the interest of those they lobby for; all know this, or should know it.

    Lawyers routinely sumbit to each other proposed agreements, stipulations, and other documents which they prepare on behalf of their clients and according to their clients' interest. The lawyer receiving the draft will then review it and modify it in accordance with his/her client's interest. A negotiated document is the eventual result.

    Legislation is negotiated as well, in the same manner, among legislators and among those who are impacted by the legislation (legislators have lawyers too). Drafts pass back and forth, are discussed and amended, and are eventually voted on, to either be adopted or rejected or amended yet again. The fact that a lobbyist submits a proposed draft for consideration is not itself an indication of undue influence. It may be reviewed or not reviewed by the legislators, or may be used as a working draft subject to modification during the legislative process.

    The fact that most of a proposed draft submitted by a lobbyist is adopted is certainly suggestive, but especially with complicated documents and laws there will be a good deal of "boilerplate" that any lawyer would insert as a matter of course regardless of their client, or a legislature would insert as a matter of course regardless of any lobbyist. Just what it was of the draft that is adopted will be significant, not there mere fact that a lot of it was adopted.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You have to cap & disclose political donations of any kind from any source, and have a register of interests for all politicians to find conflicts of interest. Whether lobbyists are buying favours and time, or justifying them with useful proposals, will always have grey areas. The press can patrol the grey areas with wider privileges, so that we all know who we should be voting for.

    ReplyDelete
  11. As for the exchange between Michael & Massimo, the answer is that advocates of all persuasions must lobby till their little hearts explode with joy at engagement in the democratic process, in which they can let politicians decide between them on our behalf, without any conflicts of interest. Press can monitor conflicts and anything that stinks.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Peter,

    > The evil is not in participatory democracy, it is rather in the fact that business are better at using it to their advantage. <

    Forgive me, but I think yours (and several others’) take on this is a bit naive. Lobbying, largely, isn’t about participatory democracy. Yes, small organizations like CFI truly do a good job of making the concerns of particular groups of individuals better known to Congressmen. But corporate lobbying is prevalent and pernicious, and it actually undermines both representative and participatory democracy. CFI could still do its educational and advocacy job without having legalized direct access to legislators. It should be treated just like any other citizen or group of citizens. And goes a fortiori for the banking and oil industries, or the gun lobby, to mention just a few.

    > you said And by the way, I think direct democracy is a horrible idea. Can you indicate what you think would be a more workable way of doing things? <

    Representative democracy. Direct democracy, as far as I know, it’s not practice in any country, and a good thing it is too.

    Ciceronianus,

    > Lawyers routinely sumbit to each other proposed agreements, stipulations, and other documents which they prepare on behalf of their clients and according to their clients' interest. <

    Indeed, but there is a profound disanalogy: legislators are supposed to represent the people who elected them, not this or that lobby. They are, as the word clearly implies, supposed to be making the legislation, not outside groups.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But the fact that lobbyists submit proposed drafts of legislation does not mean that they make the legislation. Anyone can submit such proposals (even "good" lobbyists do). Legislators seldom write the law themselves in any case. Before a bill comes up for vote, staff lawyers have been busy in its preparation (if they haven't, there likely will be problems). There are federal, state and local legislators who have trouble writing anything at all, let alone legislation which will relate to and effect an extensive body of law already in existence.

      Of far more concern are the other actions being employed by lobbyists, which are noted in the article. The ones involving the use of money, and lots of it. If legislators vote for a law drafted by a lobbyist, it will be for financial and political reasons, and that is and has been the case regardless of who drafts the law.

      Delete
  13. When I read direct democracy I don't think of Athens but rather Switzerland - representative system with strong direct elements and arguably one of the most civilized countries in the world. I.e direct democracy doesn't have to be a horrible idea...
    Cheers
    Chris

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think that Alex has it essentially correct: there is no problem with citizens organizing to petition their government. The problem occurs when one group has disproportional access or control due to their wealth. Then, you no longer have democracy or a republic – you have a plutocracy. Many people support this way of government (DeDora?) but at least call it by the correct name: plutocracy. One dollar one vote instead of one person one vote.

    One such lobbying group is the “American Legislative Exchange Council”, which advocates the “Environmental Literacy Improvement Act”. The E.L.I.A. mandates teaching a “balanced view” when teaching about the science of climate change. Thus, it is a variation of “Creation Science”. I hope DeDora doesn’t support that.

    There is good scholarship on this by Tom Ferguson of Umass/Boston. Dr. Ferguson discusses what he calls the “investment theory of politics”.

    I am stunned this discussion is even taking place. We wouldn’t tolerate someone handing out 100 dollar bills to buy votes – why should we tolerate someone handing out 100 dollar bills to buy a Congressman to adopt pre-written legislation that benefits a particular person or group? If we adopt DeDora’s view, then why not just put up each Congressional office for sale to the highest bidder?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The objections to lobbying are inflated in this post. Politicians need to give an equal hearing to all lobbyists, as due process (a human right to natural justice). It is absolutely essential that people of all kinds engage in lobbying, individually, collectively, and while walking their dogs. This view of confining or restricting the democratic process simply because there might not be due process for all lobbyists is like using a sledge hammer to crack a nut.

      Delete
  15. I was surprised that the report you quote names Germany as one of the three countries; at least I wasn't aware of it. IMO it is much less of a problem here, though, because of our proportional voting system. In PV, plutocracy stands much less of a chance as outside interests have less influence over who gets elected.
    Cheers
    Chris

    ReplyDelete
  16. Chris,

    > When I read direct democracy I don't think of Athens but rather Switzerland - representative system with strong direct elements and arguably one of the most civilized countries in the world. <

    The case of Switzerland is indeed interesting, though they do have a peculiar situation (very small country, somewhat culturally homogeneous despite the cantons) and problems (turn out at voting is extremely low by European standards. But look what has happened over the years in California, the closest the US has gotten to direct democracy, with their various voter-approved initiatives: the place is almost ungovernable, because people keep passing laws that increase benefits and laws that constrain taxation and spending. Not to mention that direct democracy always runs the risk of trampling on the rights of minorities, as well as of being in the thralls of always volatile opinion polls.

    Ciceronianus,

    > But the fact that lobbyists submit proposed drafts of legislation does not mean that they make the legislation. Anyone can submit such proposals <

    But my point is that they shouldn’t. Legislating is a serious business that ought to take into account a large and varied constituency, and it ought to be done by the people we elect to do precisely such job (and their research and legal staff, of course).

    > Of far more concern are the other actions being employed by lobbyists, which are noted in the article. The ones involving the use of money, and lots of it <

    Indeed, but I think that this problem is not at all independent of the problem of lobbying, it is a direct consequence of it.

    Tom,

    > I think that Alex has it essentially correct: there is no problem with citizens organizing to petition their government. <

    Again, I’m baffled by why Alex (or Michael, for that matter) doesn’t see a difference between citizens organizing themselves and legalized lobbying.

    > The problem occurs when one group has disproportional access or control due to their wealth <

    Which I think is magnified by and almost unavoidable within a system that allows legalized lobbying.

    > Then, you no longer have democracy or a republic – you have a plutocracy. <

    Welcome to the United States of America, the very same country where lobbying is the most extensive in the world.

    > I am stunned this discussion is even taking place. We wouldn’t tolerate someone handing out 100 dollar bills to buy votes – why should we tolerate someone handing out 100 dollar bills to buy a Congressman to adopt pre-written legislation that benefits a particular person or group? <

    Couldn’t have put it better myself.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Massimo,
    as far as I can tell, Switzerland uses diect votes much more extensively than California, and imo it is far better governed than the US of A. Granted, special case, special country - still imo most countries (Germany included) could benefit from more direct democracy. Seperate discussion though. Agree 100% on the lobbying.
    Cheers
    Chris

    ReplyDelete
  18. Switzerland is a very good example of how direct democracy can deny the rights of minorities (actually, in this case, a majority.) Switzerland was the last western country to allow women to vote (1971.)

    ReplyDelete
  19. What has perplexed me is why the "free press" has not relentlessly focused on the enormously problematic phenomenon of lobbying. And with respect to all of the foregoing comments, I must concur with Dr. Pigliucci on every point. Both lobbying and privately financed elections ensure a plutocratic oligarchy rather than the paragon of republics, a representative democracy and a free and effective press.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Massimo, I assume you would also object to lobbying by unions and professional organizations like the American College of Physicians and the National Academy of Sciences, right?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Restricting the democratic process simply because there might not be due process for all lobbyists is like using a sledge hammer to crack a nut. Put some fair rules in place. Job done without tampering with freedom to lobby. It's an inflated and potentially fascist response to start telling any people in any collectives what they can & cannot lobby for - use the nut cracker of due process and a megaphone instead.

    ReplyDelete
  22. You seem to be think (paid) lobbying it is some kind of privileged access to legislators.

    "groups who can pay for it get privileged access to legislators"
    "but do not have regulated privileged access to the legislators"
    " regulating the legislators and prevent privileged access to them by any group,"
    "Once we buy into the idea of legalized privileged access, all bets are off,"

    Lobbying regulations have to do with what people who are paid to talk to legislators can do, But as far as I know, paid lobbyists have no more privileged access to legislators than anyone else. It is true that if they (or their staff) call and say they' would like to talk to the legislator on behalf of JP Morgan they're more likely to get an appointment than if they call and say "I'm Joe Blow and want to talk to the legislator". The lelgislator gets to decide who they (and their staff) talk to. "regulating legislators" as you propose, which I think means telling legislators who they (and their staff) could talk to seems impossible both constitutionally and practically.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "telling legislators who they (and their staff) could talk to seems impossible both constitutionally and practically"

      It's supposed to be easy as pie. They are your representatives and their doors are open to you. They can't represent you if they don't know what you need. If they close their doors there needs to be a reason, and you had best get it in writing.

      Delete
    2. @Jerry schwartz,

      It is not impossible nor unconstitutional to have meaningful lobbying reform.

      See, for example, the "Public Citizen" approach to lobbying reform which includes such things as:

      * Mandating registration and disclosure of professional lobbyists, their clients and certain financial activity, all records of which are to be made easily available to the public on the Internet in a searchable, sortable and downloadable fashion.

      * Monitoring and enforcing compliance to the lobbyist registration and disclosure requirements, as well as any other violations of lobbying laws or ethics rules, through a governmental agency that is fully independent of the lobbying profession.

      * Extending transparency and accountability measures beyond lobbyists to public officials as well, including restrictions on conflicts of interest, full financial disclosure of investments and properties owned by government officials, and restrictions and disclosure on the “revolving door” between the private sector and the public sector.
      [see http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=4817]

      Delete
    3. @Marcus
      You haven't specified exactly what rule you want, but I'll take it as "every constituent who wants time with a legislator gets 30 minutes before anyone else and before repeats" But in reality that wouldn't achieve your purpose. Large organizations (like banks) can probably afford to flood all representatives with constituents while small organizations (like CFI) can't. You would in fact be providing privileged access on a basis that would be easily manipulated by large organizations. Exactly what Massimo is wanting to avoid. It's that kind of problem I had in mind when I said it would be impractical.

      Delete
    4. @ Tom D
      I fully support this kinds of things you suggest. I note that there are existing regulations of this type. And we agree that they ought to be strengthened. But none of them addresses Massimo's concerns, which as I understand them, are that rich organizations (like banks) hire more lobbyists and have more influence over legislation than less wealthy organizations (like CFI).

      Delete
    5. I suspect the answer is to be practical rather than having prescriptive rules. "A level playing field" of generally stated principles for fair access. It will depend on their time & resources as much as your own, the issues, importance etc. Rogues exist everywhere, and some representative will fail as representatives by closing their doors. Catch them out, and make it known.

      Delete
  23. My problem with lobbyists is that our elected officials are supposed to be a lobbyist for the people who elected them. They represent our interests in Washington. So now I'm supposed to hire a lobbyist to lobby my lobbyist?

    ReplyDelete
  24. My problem with lobbyists is that our elected officials are supposed to be a lobbyist for the people who elected them. They represent our interests in Washington. So now I'm supposed to hire a lobbyist to lobby my lobbyist?

    ReplyDelete
  25. I generally agree with Massimo on this piece.

    I'll respond to a few others, in no general order.

    @Jerry Schwarz, if you really think lobbyists have no special access, I've got a bridge to nowhere to sell you. Indeed, the scenario you present goes on to admit that special access. If you think a Congressional staffer is actually going to say no to his/her boss seeing a lobbyist, I've got two bridges to nowhere to sell you.

    Filippo Neri: Switzerland does not have a "direct democracy." It may be more direct than the US, but it's not the New England town hall or ancient Athens. And, any democracy is problematic; Islamists elected in Algeria before a military coup, and Hamas "instead of" the PLO in Palestine.

    Chbieck: to the degree California's initiative system can be compared with semi-direct democracy in Switzerland, it illustrates Massimo's point to a T. The Cal initiative process is bought, lock, stock and barrel, by big biz.

    Ciceronius: Per my comments to Jerry, anyone theoretically "can" submit draft legislation, but whose gets looked at? Come on.

    That said, Massimo is wrong on one thing. And that's that, if you engage in bribery or similar, you go to jail.

    Not even close.

    For counterexample No. 1, I present: Berlusconi, Silvio.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Gadfly
      It seems we understand the phrase "privileged access" differently. I think it means that there are some rules imposed by someone that mean legislators must see (or otherwise interact with) some people. You seem to think that if a legislator chooses to see someone and declines to see someone else that is "privileged access". I think my definition is more natural, but I don't know which Massimo intended.

      As for whether legislators ever turn down meetings with lobbyists, I have done some unpaid lobbying on behalf of the ACLU at the California legislature and I can tell you that yes, legislators do turn us down and I almost always get to see staff rather than the legislator. I suppose you might say that what I do isn't really lobbying because I'm unpaid, I'm sure our paid lobbyists have more access than I do but that's because know more than I do about the particular legislation of concern to the ACLU, about the legislative process, about the legislator's previous positions, etc. and so the legislator thinks it is more productive to meet with them than to meet with me. Not because they have some privilege that I don't.

      Delete
  26. @ Gadfly,

    >Switzerland does not have a "direct democracy.”<

    Well, this is an example of the “No true Scotsman” fallacy. One could as well argue that Athens was not really a direct democracy either, because - as Thucydides wrote - Athens was "in name a democracy but, in fact, governed by its first citizen.” (Pericles.) Also, while Athens ruled a vast empire, only the inhabitants of the city itself had citizenship rights and the criteria for being a citizen were restricted over time. This is another example of direct-democracy limiting the rights of minorities – in this case the inhabitants of Athens whose parents were not Athenians on both sides for multiple generations.

    The point is that Switzerland is the country with a political system closest to direct democracy at the present. It is also true that Switzerland denied political rights to women until 1971. Everybody who understands the history of the subject understands that the direct-democracy aspects of the Swiss system were responsible for this aberration. Quoting Wikepedia: “The principal reason for the delay of the Swiss relative to the other European countries is the importance of direct democracy in the political system. In fact, the introduction of federal and cantonal universal suffrage necessitated the vote of the majority of the electors, men in this case, for a referendum.”

    ReplyDelete
  27. I just heard hilarious news about the press in the UK posing as lobbyists to entrap bent English politicians. You Americans need to get on your bikes and either level the playing field or expose the benders. Its better than whingeing about lobbying.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Lobbyists (and lobbying) are part of the process of government, but the focus should not be on them. The primary (no pun intended) question should always be: What is the candidate's (or current office holder's) moral code? It it is good, then lobbying is not the main problem. If it is bad, then they are going to pass bad law, or prevent good law from passing, no matter what. (Take the case of the Republican House caucus and all but a couple of Republican senators.) Now there is the problem of candidates with good moral code getting both known and then elected by the people, and that is a problem for election reform and a problem for education of the people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ralph Peters (admittedly an islamophobic rightwinger) described the moral code of members of Congress this way: “The truth is most members of Congress, Republican or Democrat, will favor a contractor who pays in campaign contributions over soldiers who pay with their lives.”

      Delete
    2. I don't blame the lobbyists either, democracy is a totally inclusive process, and if rogues exist, find them. If they are less accessible than representatives should be, censure them. But realize that they will already have policy alignments - stated and potential - so accept that its all grey no matter what happens.

      Delete
  29. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  30. @ Filippo Neri,

    Thanks for your comments on Switzerland/Direct Democracy.

    It is true that Direct Democracy may have problems -- most notably discrimination against minorities. But what I do not understand, and what I wish Massimo would explain is why anyone would think that alternative forms of government would necessarily be any better.

    Direct Democracy at least has the utilitarian virtue that it will please the most people (who will presumably vote their own interests). With an elitist in charge who assumes he knows better than the majority, there is no telling *what* you will get.

    To me, Massimo's viewpoint seems uncomfortably close to people such as Alexander Hamilton, who described the people as a "great beast" from which the governing elites had to be protected. Or Woodrow Wilson's Sec. of State, Robert Lansing, who warned against the "ignorant and incapable mass of humanity" who might become "dominant on the earth". Or Walter Lippman who spoke against the "ignorant and meddlesome outsiders" who wanted to engage in the political process.

    Thomas Jefferson made a distinction between the "aristocrats" and the "democrats". The aristocrats being "those who fear and distrust the people and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes"; while the democrats are those who "identify with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe , although not the most wise depository of the public interest."

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.