Is political lobbying a form of corruption?

[Tahuti]

Name says it all, discuss and vote away.

 

[aronnax]

A group of concern citizens who form an organisation to fight for the cause they believe in - Alright in my book.

A company who forms an organisation to fight for the cause that best benefits their business, who can throw more money forming said organisation than the aforementioned group of concern citizens.

If lobbying was controlled and regulated with certain limits, such as monetary donations and such.

But overall, if the system of lobbying is likely to be abused rather than used fairly, such as in the case of the American Lobbying system, it is far better to ban lobbying.

 

[luiz]

There are lobbyists we like and lobbysist we don't like. Not only corporations do lobbying, but also NGO's, civil rights groups, "minority pressure groups", etc.

Personally I would like to see all "pressure groups" lose power, but am not sure on the best way to do that. It's pretty clear that in several democracies organized minorities (in the political sense) exercise a far greater power than their numbers justify.

 

[BvBPL]

No, it is not. Groups, of all strips, have a right to lobby their elected officials for their interests. The current situation in Washington DC isn’t ideal by any means though.

 

[Tahuti]

But overall, if the system of lobbying is likely to be abused rather than used fairly, such as in the case of the American Lobbying system, it is far better to ban lobbying.

I think the main problem of the American political system is the lack of political consciousness among its voters and its lack of institutional adjustment to the current era, not lobbying itself. PAC's and Corporations usually know what they want, from whom they'll get what the want and what they can expect to get. Voters usually don't have such a clear-cut vision when they vote and I think it would help a lot if they would as well.
It might be an idea to allow people to "fire" a congressperson from their district: This would still allow lobbyists to bring attention to topics voters normally wouldn't care about, but would also prevent politicians from getting lobbied as to go against the interests of their voting district.

 

[Camikaze]

Lobbying isn't bad in itself. The idea of allowing those with the best knowledge on a subject to inform representatives who are going to vote on it makes perfect sense. It's just that there's an unfortunate link between money and lobbying. Those with the most money aren't necessarily those with the best knowledge, and certainly aren't those with the most objective knowledge. That still though doesn't make it corruption so much as dangerous and damaging until it involves favours (election financing, gift showering, literal bribes, etc.) in return for votes.

 

[aronnax]

I think the main problem of the American political system is the lack of political consciousness among its voters and its lack of institutional adjustment to the current era, not lobbying itself. PAC's and Corporations usually know what they want, from whom they'll get what the want and what they can expect to get. Voters usually don't have such a clear-cut vision when they vote and I think it would help a lot if they would as well.
It might be an idea to allow people to "fire" a congressperson from their district: This would still allow lobbyists to bring attention to topics voters normally wouldn't care about, but would also prevent politicians from getting lobbied as to go against the interests of their voting district.

Some sort of signed petition of at least a certain percentage of the district population for a district vote-of-no-confidence plebiscite does sound nice.

I also like the idea of limiting lobbying donation/funding to a certain amount per person per year. That will seriously cut the ability of corporations to make powerful lobbies without popular support.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

In principle no, in practive most of the time yes.
If people or corporations form a group and try to pressure politicians or change public opinion with campaigns it's legitimate part of a democratic system.
It becomes corruption the moment that a lobby group provides money or 'free' services (hookers!) for politicians or parties.

 

[Kozmos]

When money or favours are involved it almost always ends up being so.

 

[downtown]

There are lobbyists we like and lobbysist we don't like. Not only corporations do lobbying, but also NGO's, civil rights groups, "minority pressure groups", etc.

Personally I would like to see all "pressure groups" lose power, but am not sure on the best way to do that. It's pretty clear that in several democracies organized minorities (in the political sense) exercise a far greater power than their numbers justify.

Right, because it is about money, not about numbers. If your minority group can become geographically centered, OR have lots of dough, you will have outsized influence, like the Cuban-American lobby.

Lobbying can be perfectly fine...they fill an important need for information for our congressional reps. The problem is when they start to buy influence by giving gifts, or paying for election campaigns. If we limited the need for a gazillion dollars to campaign, we could take away an important bribery tool for lobbyists.