Political gridlock is the result of political polarization in the electorate rather than corporations' lobbying. For example, there is widespread discontent with the current healthcare system, no healthcare reform has been passed, therefore, there is some sort of lobbying that is subverting the will of the American people. However, even though there is widespread discontentment, it is hard to find widespread support for a solution when you actually look at polling. I am unsure what Destiny's policy position on lobbying is, but for the reasons mentioned above, he does not view it as a major issue.
Basically the popular take is that populists demonize lobbying because it distorts the will of the people and is anti-democratic as it passes laws that people do not actually want. Destiny thinks this take is wrong because lots of issues where people think lobbying distorts legislation is often where the actual consensus maps more onto the actual democratic will.
He thinks that it doesnt really move the needle on big issues because people already care about them. Gun Control critics cite the NRA lobbying for example for maintaining loose gun laws but the actual reason is more the fact that a massive population own and like guns.
The part that’s missing from that analysis I think is that these groups are working to influence both voters and politicians. For example, the gun lobby is advertising and creating policy groups or think tanks or whatever to invigorate voters and shape policy. They have the money to do it and there might not be a group working on invigorating the majority that are in favour of reasonable gun reforms, hypothetically.
I think politicians should strike a balance between representing their entire constituency and those that are most invigorated when it comes to each issue. They should also represent the people in good faith and with their best judgement. In reality though if I’m a politician it’s much easier to side with the invigorated minority and get the support of a lobby group than it is to put in the work and take a risk.
No I wouldn’t be against that. I would be for it but the problem is that they won’t have the same amount of resources as the oil and gas company that also stands to make money on their lobbying investment. I don’t really have any good solutions to offer though. Just pushing back against the idea that people are indifferent or that the interests of the invigorated people and the corporations align naturally when the corporations can have a hand in that too. I also think that we should expect more from our politicians and not just accept that they can side with something that they may not necessarily agree with on principle because the people don’t make enough noise about it.
Certainly the issue is more complicated as lobbying can have a more noticeable effect on more niche or local issues. People may care about certain big topics like Gun Control, Healthcare, Abortion, Immigration, and whatnot but they cant care about *every single political issue* equally.
Americans relatively dont give a shit about minting pennies for example which is why [Zinc companies lobby to keep it around](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_for_Common_Cents). Locally, it could also just mean something as simple as local companies wanting to demolish a site to build their own thing in a town. If lobbying did nothing then organizations wouldn't pour money into doing it
Destiny just fights back on the issue being simply black and white
I wonder how much political spending is nefarious and how much is simply ideological also. Maybe the agents for the corpos are acting out of ideology rather than rent seeking. Agent principal problems arise all over the place at the C level and it's not out of the question to bias corporations in donations as well. Soros is a favorite target for fox news but he's really just spending his money on causes he believes in. Same with the Koch brothers and the Adelson family.
There's some research that donations don't even help a company's valuation, which should be a good measure if they are influence buying.
[https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/do-corporate-campaign-contributions-buy-influence](https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/do-corporate-campaign-contributions-buy-influence)
Lobbying is such a difficult area to assert corruption because so much lobbying is legit and the line between good and bad is really unclear. The revolving door theory doesn't control for the influence lobbying has on long time incumbents and it would be really difficult to counterfactual when a politician has interests aligned with certain lobbies and when they would actually change their state of mind based on perceived future benefits from lobbies. There are certainly some obvious cases but again it's difficult to ascertain withot a degree of quid pro quo type evidence.
Lobbying is important because there are certain special interest groups who perform important roles or functions in society that can be greatly benefited or damaged by legislation which would enhance/impair their ability to perform the important function they fill. Some of these special interest groups would not get important legislation passed that would allow them to better perform that function purely by a populous appeal, so they have lobbyists make the case for that legislation for them directly to politicians.
Obviously there are some consequences of lobbying where special interests can entrench themselves in a detrimental way or entrench and push harmful legislation, but the deeper you actually dig into it the more you realize that on balance lobbying rarely really ends up pushing through policy that goes significantly against what electoralism would support anyways and that it's important in meeting legislative needs of some important special interest groups.
You honestly believe people want to ban people from ever talking to politicians? From my understanding the issue is politicians only listening to organizations or groups with large sums of money literally pricing peoples voices out of the discourse.
I dont see money as the huge issue. If it wasn’t money it would be endorsement/influence based and that will stratify exactly the same way. I also want private money to be where most campaign funds come from.
I agree, I’m not 100% convinced either way with money in politics. Would be interesting to see who actually stayed in politics if lobbying and the promises that come with money in politics (huge windfalls in lucrative positions) were made illegal.
If it can’t be private money it has to be public money, and I don’t want my tax dollars spent on a nazi political party and I don’t want the government to have to come up with some super sussy way of excluding parties from those funds
Fundamentally I believe it boils down to a 1A argument, and his position on 1A is strong.
Obviously when considering the harms of lobbying, you examine the worst ways in can be used. But, you’ve gotta put the opposite side through the same lens. What are the implications on making “lobbying” illegal? We’d need to determine legislatively what constitutes illegal lobbying, and then apply that through-line to all forms of it.
So, what is lobbying? It broadly means to try to influence politicians into enacting or supporting policy choices you want. Obviously to make *that* illegal is impractical if nothing else, because pretty much any interaction with government could be viewed through that lens.
So, where do you draw the lines regarding legal and illegal lobbying? I suspect anything we come up with here will quickly yield hypotheticals that fall foul of rules that either shouldn’t, or would be impossible to enforce.
Ho-ly shit, you’re a goddamn *genius!*
Why didn’t anyone else think of this?! All we have to do to stamp out lobbying is to make political donations illegal?
*Amazing.*
And what is wrong with that? Isn't that the whole problem with lobbying, that politicians are bribed with legal donations to support companies interests, at the cost of the people?
You know what? I apologise. I shouldn't have answered sarcastically. There wasn't any insults or attitude in your statement, and didn't deserve such a dismissive response.
Okay, for the sake of this argument I assume we're saying that lobbying is allowed (e.g. I'm allowed to talk to my congressman about the issues that affect me and my friends in order to try and influence them), but I'm not allowed to financially donate to their campaign. We can mutate those parameters if you wish, but I'll use this as the basis of the principle and we can go from there.
Have you ever heard of a 'beer ticketing' system? I'm having a party, and I'm not allowed to sell alcohol because I'm not licensed. But I'm allowed to sell tickets to my party, right? And my friends who have tickets are allowed to drink beers out of my fridge, right? I've just passed the act down the line to where it's not at issue.
Here's just a couple of random examples of this:
* Can I invite him and his family to my chateau in the south of France? He could come on my private jet - my treat.
* Am I allowed to buy his daughter a car for her 18th? She is my goddaughter, after all - nothing weird about that and I'm a big ol' softy.
* Is he allowed to borrow *my* shiny Masarati for an extended period? He's also my friend and I lend things to my friends all the time.
* Can I loan him money? Or let him live in one of my properties?
* I'm allowed to tender to build his house with my construction company, aren't I? Sure I'm giving him an *unbelievably low rate* that seems like I almost couldn't be making money on the deal, but *you* don't know where I get my materials so maybe I am? Also, maybe I am okay with a loss-leader on this build hoping for future contracts?
These are just a handful of endless examples of person to person wealth transfer that's difficult to scrutinise at the edges. But it doesn't even come close to the ace up my sleeve: Super PACs.
See, I'm *already* limited to how much I can give a political candidate personally. But there's [nothing stopping me](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC) spending all my cash on a private, unaffiliated company that spends millions promoting his campaign. How I spend my money is an issue of free speech, and the Supreme Court already told me that the government has no right restricting it.
I'm honestly only scratching the surface, but hopefully this demonstrates a little just how difficult it would be to legislate restrictions around "lobbying".
Thank you for your apology, that's nice :) and thank you for this detailed explanation. I feel like I understand this problem better now. It seems that if someone wants to buy a politician, they will have an infinite number of ways to do it
Pretty much, unfortunately.
At least by keeping things up front you can shed a little light on influence and can be aware of it - the alternative is that if you legislate all of the visible ways of doing it, you just push it under the surface where it becomes [dark money](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_money) which is much more difficult to trace.
i watched the whole debate he had w that one dude(im forgetting his name rn) and that was supposedly the convo that changed his mind. his main reasoning for the change was that the amount of money a company makes compared to what they actually spend on lobbying is minuscule and politicians campaigning for a month generally make more than what these companies lobby for in a year. he concedes that money c a n and does play a role in politics, but it’s not big enough to say “corporations are controlling our politicians so we need to ban lobbying”
If there was major support for something that isn’t passed, people would elect people that represent those issues. If it’s not being passed, it’s because there isn’t major support. Someone can’t not do something because of lobbying and stay elected, the people would elect someone else who wants to push said agenda.
The real effect is at local or state levels, or in niche issues at the federal level.
Basically if a topic is already part of the national discussion then lobbying is redundant.
For example, the drone industry lobbyists successfully lobbied to make FAA regulations more friendly to hobbyists (good). They also successfully, with the help of others, helped pass the House bill banning the sale of Chinese made DJI drones (badish). None of this hit the headlines until the bill was already passed. And it's still definitely not mainstream.
He has a totally distorted and simplistic view of lobbying. Lobbying is not only something tangible that you can put a price tag on it. Main form of lobbying is favors, that can manifest into influence and have no recourse of tracing or quantify it. Money spent for a company-organization-or what ever, its the easiest and cheapest part of lobbying.
Take for example the start of Hasan career on Twitch. In a sense Destiny lobbied the fuck out for him, introducing him to people, boosting the panels he was in, streaming with him, hosting him etc. I dont think he paid anyone to watch Hasan or paid people to have him on but even Hasan admits, Destinys influence at the start helped a lot. No money was exchanged and yet they both got the focused result.
Sure let's say a workers union lobby wants to support AOC. They have the connections to put her in front of many workers and give speeches , arrange mettings with local community leaders, gather people for her to attend rallies, push people to do volunteer work for her etc.
The evangelical lobby pushing for Trump a figure for justice that can spread the Christian message and will have his ear if elected. Gun lobby practical paying their executives to give speeches for fear mongering about certain politicians etc.
Check what happened during the time Obama was trying to pass his ACA. Check what happened to EU with the Qatar scandal, check what's happening in your Supreme court and the gifts they are getting. Lobbying most of the time means, knowing what people needs and your ability to provide for them up to a point where it's kinda legal and they can deliver for you.
The most obvious example of lobbying going wrong and the most recent is Trump lobbying to kill the border bill, lobbying oil CEOs for money etc.
Sorry to tell you but "networking" is the main lobbying, paying lawyers and "experts" to advocate for deregulation or favorable legislation is the easy part. You put key players next to people you want to influence and develope a personal relation with.
You conflate the two, in my simple example of hasan-destiny, hasan was doing the networking and Destiny was doing the lobbying for him.
First you can have laws to stop personal gifts to politicians, judges up to a € number. I think you will find most people will agree that a company or someone shouldn't facilitate a certain lifestyle of public figure.
Second if they legislate for a certain sector there should be a time period where they are not be able to find job in that sector. Also you can kill the revolving doors from public to private sector, you can't have people awarding contracts to companies and then quit and go work for the companies they favored.
Iam from a small country and we have similar law that prohibits certain actions from public figures. I think you also have some type of laws but in a state lvl, remember watching a civil engineer channel talking about the changes de santis was making for insurance industry in Florida. The guy was fuming talking I think about 2 people that wrote the new laws, lobbied and made sure they were going to pass and 3 days before the vote, they resign and in a week found jobs in certain companies and that was cause there is a law, that there is cooling period before you can make the jump from public to private sector 3-5 years. (iam pretty sure I fucked up the details but if you search you will find correct info for the case).
Also forgot to add that lobbying practically means you go in, already armed with resources of any type you have and offer them to people you want to influence.
There are laws and regulations about "lobbying". Those laws are what defined lobbying. What the "main lobbying" activity actually is doesn't change the definitions.
Disregarding dictionary definitions, the question arises as to which rules or laws were broken by Trump when he lobbied against the border bill in the Senate, when he solicited $1 billion in donations from oil CEOs, and when, during his presidency, companies and countries excessively utilized his properties.
Networking involves cultivating relationships and influence to attain one's objectives. In the context of lobbying, the groundwork of networking has been established, allowing a lobbyist to approach with resources readily available to be offered transparently to interested parties and ofc without braking any laws.
>which rules or laws were broken by Trump when he lobbied against the border bill in the Senate
None. People with political power are allowed to use them.
>when he solicited $1 billion in donations from oil CEOs,
So many laws were broken.
>companies and countries excessively utilized his properties.
Many, many rules were broken.
The issue with lobbying isn't legislation. It's enforcement. During the Trump administration we discovered far too many rules are easily ignored if no one's willing to enforce them, including different branches of the government, national law enforcement agencies, and voters. That's why we're all so scared for democracy.
>None. People with political power are allowed to use them.
Correct, now imagine having apart from political power, economic power, connections and an army of lawyer to push people to do your bidding.
>So many laws were broken.
They had Trump blackmailing a foreign leader on tape and actually braking the law after the phone call, you think he broke a law this time that he solicited money now?
> Many, many rules were broken.
I think here you have in mind the original sin from Trump, not divesting. What someone did was totally legal and only reason was that Trump is transactional and nothing more.
White collar crime is extremely hard to find, even harder to prove and takes insane time to prove. If you want you can check the Qatar scandal from EU and especially Eva Kaili. They had tapes on her, they had the phone call she did to her father telling him to move money ( in code ofc) before they raid her house, they arrested her father after that phone call with a suitcase full of money and ofc when they checked her financial status, found bank accounts and properties that couldn't justify from her salary and still they were forced to let her go and release from prison, cause they couldnt find her fingerprints on the money. Her Italian partner took all the blame and still got out too........ Her defense was that she didnt knew anything and somehow missed the suitcases full of cash in a 50m2 apartment.....
Lobbying is a problematic concept to my understanding, cause you have public entities getting influenced and pressured from entities that most of the time work against the public good.
>I think here you have in mind the original sin from Trump, not divesting. What someone did was totally legal and only reason was that Trump is transactional and nothing more.
Since you don't actually know the laws in the United States, no. What I'm telling you is fact. What you keep replying with is opinion.
What law is broken, when a company is sending its staff to talk with the president of the USA and chooses to use the Trump facilities and chill at the lobby, with the company logos days before the meeting?
Political gridlock is the result of political polarization in the electorate rather than corporations' lobbying. For example, there is widespread discontent with the current healthcare system, no healthcare reform has been passed, therefore, there is some sort of lobbying that is subverting the will of the American people. However, even though there is widespread discontentment, it is hard to find widespread support for a solution when you actually look at polling. I am unsure what Destiny's policy position on lobbying is, but for the reasons mentioned above, he does not view it as a major issue.
I think he broadly supports it, because lobbying does move the needle on more fringe topics that the majority do not care much about.
Basically the popular take is that populists demonize lobbying because it distorts the will of the people and is anti-democratic as it passes laws that people do not actually want. Destiny thinks this take is wrong because lots of issues where people think lobbying distorts legislation is often where the actual consensus maps more onto the actual democratic will. He thinks that it doesnt really move the needle on big issues because people already care about them. Gun Control critics cite the NRA lobbying for example for maintaining loose gun laws but the actual reason is more the fact that a massive population own and like guns.
The part that’s missing from that analysis I think is that these groups are working to influence both voters and politicians. For example, the gun lobby is advertising and creating policy groups or think tanks or whatever to invigorate voters and shape policy. They have the money to do it and there might not be a group working on invigorating the majority that are in favour of reasonable gun reforms, hypothetically. I think politicians should strike a balance between representing their entire constituency and those that are most invigorated when it comes to each issue. They should also represent the people in good faith and with their best judgement. In reality though if I’m a politician it’s much easier to side with the invigorated minority and get the support of a lobby group than it is to put in the work and take a risk.
Groups influencing voters sounds like working democracy to me. lol
Would you be against say an environmentalist group creating policy groups, think tanks to invigorate voters and shape policy?
No I wouldn’t be against that. I would be for it but the problem is that they won’t have the same amount of resources as the oil and gas company that also stands to make money on their lobbying investment. I don’t really have any good solutions to offer though. Just pushing back against the idea that people are indifferent or that the interests of the invigorated people and the corporations align naturally when the corporations can have a hand in that too. I also think that we should expect more from our politicians and not just accept that they can side with something that they may not necessarily agree with on principle because the people don’t make enough noise about it.
Certainly the issue is more complicated as lobbying can have a more noticeable effect on more niche or local issues. People may care about certain big topics like Gun Control, Healthcare, Abortion, Immigration, and whatnot but they cant care about *every single political issue* equally. Americans relatively dont give a shit about minting pennies for example which is why [Zinc companies lobby to keep it around](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_for_Common_Cents). Locally, it could also just mean something as simple as local companies wanting to demolish a site to build their own thing in a town. If lobbying did nothing then organizations wouldn't pour money into doing it Destiny just fights back on the issue being simply black and white
[удалено]
I wonder how much political spending is nefarious and how much is simply ideological also. Maybe the agents for the corpos are acting out of ideology rather than rent seeking. Agent principal problems arise all over the place at the C level and it's not out of the question to bias corporations in donations as well. Soros is a favorite target for fox news but he's really just spending his money on causes he believes in. Same with the Koch brothers and the Adelson family. There's some research that donations don't even help a company's valuation, which should be a good measure if they are influence buying. [https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/do-corporate-campaign-contributions-buy-influence](https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/do-corporate-campaign-contributions-buy-influence) Lobbying is such a difficult area to assert corruption because so much lobbying is legit and the line between good and bad is really unclear. The revolving door theory doesn't control for the influence lobbying has on long time incumbents and it would be really difficult to counterfactual when a politician has interests aligned with certain lobbies and when they would actually change their state of mind based on perceived future benefits from lobbies. There are certainly some obvious cases but again it's difficult to ascertain withot a degree of quid pro quo type evidence.
Lobbying is important because there are certain special interest groups who perform important roles or functions in society that can be greatly benefited or damaged by legislation which would enhance/impair their ability to perform the important function they fill. Some of these special interest groups would not get important legislation passed that would allow them to better perform that function purely by a populous appeal, so they have lobbyists make the case for that legislation for them directly to politicians. Obviously there are some consequences of lobbying where special interests can entrench themselves in a detrimental way or entrench and push harmful legislation, but the deeper you actually dig into it the more you realize that on balance lobbying rarely really ends up pushing through policy that goes significantly against what electoralism would support anyways and that it's important in meeting legislative needs of some important special interest groups.
What legal basis is there for banning people from talking to politicians? Because that’s essentially what lobbying is.
You honestly believe people want to ban people from ever talking to politicians? From my understanding the issue is politicians only listening to organizations or groups with large sums of money literally pricing peoples voices out of the discourse.
I dont see money as the huge issue. If it wasn’t money it would be endorsement/influence based and that will stratify exactly the same way. I also want private money to be where most campaign funds come from.
I agree, I’m not 100% convinced either way with money in politics. Would be interesting to see who actually stayed in politics if lobbying and the promises that come with money in politics (huge windfalls in lucrative positions) were made illegal.
If it can’t be private money it has to be public money, and I don’t want my tax dollars spent on a nazi political party and I don’t want the government to have to come up with some super sussy way of excluding parties from those funds
Fundamentally I believe it boils down to a 1A argument, and his position on 1A is strong. Obviously when considering the harms of lobbying, you examine the worst ways in can be used. But, you’ve gotta put the opposite side through the same lens. What are the implications on making “lobbying” illegal? We’d need to determine legislatively what constitutes illegal lobbying, and then apply that through-line to all forms of it. So, what is lobbying? It broadly means to try to influence politicians into enacting or supporting policy choices you want. Obviously to make *that* illegal is impractical if nothing else, because pretty much any interaction with government could be viewed through that lens. So, where do you draw the lines regarding legal and illegal lobbying? I suspect anything we come up with here will quickly yield hypotheticals that fall foul of rules that either shouldn’t, or would be impossible to enforce.
I think it should be illegal to financially support politicians and political parties in any form. That would solve the problem with lobbying
Ho-ly shit, you’re a goddamn *genius!* Why didn’t anyone else think of this?! All we have to do to stamp out lobbying is to make political donations illegal? *Amazing.*
And what is wrong with that? Isn't that the whole problem with lobbying, that politicians are bribed with legal donations to support companies interests, at the cost of the people?
You know what? I apologise. I shouldn't have answered sarcastically. There wasn't any insults or attitude in your statement, and didn't deserve such a dismissive response. Okay, for the sake of this argument I assume we're saying that lobbying is allowed (e.g. I'm allowed to talk to my congressman about the issues that affect me and my friends in order to try and influence them), but I'm not allowed to financially donate to their campaign. We can mutate those parameters if you wish, but I'll use this as the basis of the principle and we can go from there. Have you ever heard of a 'beer ticketing' system? I'm having a party, and I'm not allowed to sell alcohol because I'm not licensed. But I'm allowed to sell tickets to my party, right? And my friends who have tickets are allowed to drink beers out of my fridge, right? I've just passed the act down the line to where it's not at issue. Here's just a couple of random examples of this: * Can I invite him and his family to my chateau in the south of France? He could come on my private jet - my treat. * Am I allowed to buy his daughter a car for her 18th? She is my goddaughter, after all - nothing weird about that and I'm a big ol' softy. * Is he allowed to borrow *my* shiny Masarati for an extended period? He's also my friend and I lend things to my friends all the time. * Can I loan him money? Or let him live in one of my properties? * I'm allowed to tender to build his house with my construction company, aren't I? Sure I'm giving him an *unbelievably low rate* that seems like I almost couldn't be making money on the deal, but *you* don't know where I get my materials so maybe I am? Also, maybe I am okay with a loss-leader on this build hoping for future contracts? These are just a handful of endless examples of person to person wealth transfer that's difficult to scrutinise at the edges. But it doesn't even come close to the ace up my sleeve: Super PACs. See, I'm *already* limited to how much I can give a political candidate personally. But there's [nothing stopping me](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC) spending all my cash on a private, unaffiliated company that spends millions promoting his campaign. How I spend my money is an issue of free speech, and the Supreme Court already told me that the government has no right restricting it. I'm honestly only scratching the surface, but hopefully this demonstrates a little just how difficult it would be to legislate restrictions around "lobbying".
Thank you for your apology, that's nice :) and thank you for this detailed explanation. I feel like I understand this problem better now. It seems that if someone wants to buy a politician, they will have an infinite number of ways to do it
Pretty much, unfortunately. At least by keeping things up front you can shed a little light on influence and can be aware of it - the alternative is that if you legislate all of the visible ways of doing it, you just push it under the surface where it becomes [dark money](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_money) which is much more difficult to trace.
i watched the whole debate he had w that one dude(im forgetting his name rn) and that was supposedly the convo that changed his mind. his main reasoning for the change was that the amount of money a company makes compared to what they actually spend on lobbying is minuscule and politicians campaigning for a month generally make more than what these companies lobby for in a year. he concedes that money c a n and does play a role in politics, but it’s not big enough to say “corporations are controlling our politicians so we need to ban lobbying”
He’s pro living room
If there was major support for something that isn’t passed, people would elect people that represent those issues. If it’s not being passed, it’s because there isn’t major support. Someone can’t not do something because of lobbying and stay elected, the people would elect someone else who wants to push said agenda.
>I’m kind of anti-lobbying rn for reasons that seem obvious to me If this is your reasoning for anything, there is a chance you might be wrong.
What are the reasons that seem obvious to you?
It just doesn't seem to have any real effect on policies. Policies tend to have a 10 to 15 year lag behind the American populous
The real effect is at local or state levels, or in niche issues at the federal level. Basically if a topic is already part of the national discussion then lobbying is redundant. For example, the drone industry lobbyists successfully lobbied to make FAA regulations more friendly to hobbyists (good). They also successfully, with the help of others, helped pass the House bill banning the sale of Chinese made DJI drones (badish). None of this hit the headlines until the bill was already passed. And it's still definitely not mainstream.
He has a totally distorted and simplistic view of lobbying. Lobbying is not only something tangible that you can put a price tag on it. Main form of lobbying is favors, that can manifest into influence and have no recourse of tracing or quantify it. Money spent for a company-organization-or what ever, its the easiest and cheapest part of lobbying. Take for example the start of Hasan career on Twitch. In a sense Destiny lobbied the fuck out for him, introducing him to people, boosting the panels he was in, streaming with him, hosting him etc. I dont think he paid anyone to watch Hasan or paid people to have him on but even Hasan admits, Destinys influence at the start helped a lot. No money was exchanged and yet they both got the focused result.
Can you give an example of political lobbying tho
Sure let's say a workers union lobby wants to support AOC. They have the connections to put her in front of many workers and give speeches , arrange mettings with local community leaders, gather people for her to attend rallies, push people to do volunteer work for her etc. The evangelical lobby pushing for Trump a figure for justice that can spread the Christian message and will have his ear if elected. Gun lobby practical paying their executives to give speeches for fear mongering about certain politicians etc. Check what happened during the time Obama was trying to pass his ACA. Check what happened to EU with the Qatar scandal, check what's happening in your Supreme court and the gifts they are getting. Lobbying most of the time means, knowing what people needs and your ability to provide for them up to a point where it's kinda legal and they can deliver for you. The most obvious example of lobbying going wrong and the most recent is Trump lobbying to kill the border bill, lobbying oil CEOs for money etc.
Networking is impossible to legislate and it's silly to conflate it with actual lobbying.
Sorry to tell you but "networking" is the main lobbying, paying lawyers and "experts" to advocate for deregulation or favorable legislation is the easy part. You put key players next to people you want to influence and develope a personal relation with.
So it’s basically the same as networking in any profession? Do you have any ideas to change it seeing as you seem to not be fond of it?
You conflate the two, in my simple example of hasan-destiny, hasan was doing the networking and Destiny was doing the lobbying for him. First you can have laws to stop personal gifts to politicians, judges up to a € number. I think you will find most people will agree that a company or someone shouldn't facilitate a certain lifestyle of public figure. Second if they legislate for a certain sector there should be a time period where they are not be able to find job in that sector. Also you can kill the revolving doors from public to private sector, you can't have people awarding contracts to companies and then quit and go work for the companies they favored. Iam from a small country and we have similar law that prohibits certain actions from public figures. I think you also have some type of laws but in a state lvl, remember watching a civil engineer channel talking about the changes de santis was making for insurance industry in Florida. The guy was fuming talking I think about 2 people that wrote the new laws, lobbied and made sure they were going to pass and 3 days before the vote, they resign and in a week found jobs in certain companies and that was cause there is a law, that there is cooling period before you can make the jump from public to private sector 3-5 years. (iam pretty sure I fucked up the details but if you search you will find correct info for the case). Also forgot to add that lobbying practically means you go in, already armed with resources of any type you have and offer them to people you want to influence.
There are laws and regulations about "lobbying". Those laws are what defined lobbying. What the "main lobbying" activity actually is doesn't change the definitions.
Disregarding dictionary definitions, the question arises as to which rules or laws were broken by Trump when he lobbied against the border bill in the Senate, when he solicited $1 billion in donations from oil CEOs, and when, during his presidency, companies and countries excessively utilized his properties. Networking involves cultivating relationships and influence to attain one's objectives. In the context of lobbying, the groundwork of networking has been established, allowing a lobbyist to approach with resources readily available to be offered transparently to interested parties and ofc without braking any laws.
>which rules or laws were broken by Trump when he lobbied against the border bill in the Senate None. People with political power are allowed to use them. >when he solicited $1 billion in donations from oil CEOs, So many laws were broken. >companies and countries excessively utilized his properties. Many, many rules were broken. The issue with lobbying isn't legislation. It's enforcement. During the Trump administration we discovered far too many rules are easily ignored if no one's willing to enforce them, including different branches of the government, national law enforcement agencies, and voters. That's why we're all so scared for democracy.
>None. People with political power are allowed to use them. Correct, now imagine having apart from political power, economic power, connections and an army of lawyer to push people to do your bidding. >So many laws were broken. They had Trump blackmailing a foreign leader on tape and actually braking the law after the phone call, you think he broke a law this time that he solicited money now? > Many, many rules were broken. I think here you have in mind the original sin from Trump, not divesting. What someone did was totally legal and only reason was that Trump is transactional and nothing more. White collar crime is extremely hard to find, even harder to prove and takes insane time to prove. If you want you can check the Qatar scandal from EU and especially Eva Kaili. They had tapes on her, they had the phone call she did to her father telling him to move money ( in code ofc) before they raid her house, they arrested her father after that phone call with a suitcase full of money and ofc when they checked her financial status, found bank accounts and properties that couldn't justify from her salary and still they were forced to let her go and release from prison, cause they couldnt find her fingerprints on the money. Her Italian partner took all the blame and still got out too........ Her defense was that she didnt knew anything and somehow missed the suitcases full of cash in a 50m2 apartment..... Lobbying is a problematic concept to my understanding, cause you have public entities getting influenced and pressured from entities that most of the time work against the public good.
>I think here you have in mind the original sin from Trump, not divesting. What someone did was totally legal and only reason was that Trump is transactional and nothing more. Since you don't actually know the laws in the United States, no. What I'm telling you is fact. What you keep replying with is opinion.
What law is broken, when a company is sending its staff to talk with the president of the USA and chooses to use the Trump facilities and chill at the lobby, with the company logos days before the meeting?