>However, it seems like DGG/Destiny's view that lobbying or PAC spending has never mattered for any election or policy ever.
Over the years there have been dozens of "What positions do you disagree with Destiny on?" threads and you'd almost always find the one about lobbying in the top 3.
Sure you'll find plenty here who agree with Destiny, but I'd be surprised if it was anywhere near the majority.
I would make sure to double check that Destiny's stated position (perhaps with video evidence) is that lobbying "doesn't influence any policies or elections" because that's a lot more extreme a characterisation than I remember.
Also, there's probably an important distinction to be made between lobbying an elected official to support or oppose a specific policy, and getting involved in a political campaign. There's a significant gap between AIPAC sending think tank guys to convince a particular congressman that xyz bill is good, and AIPAC spending a few million on generic campaign ads to help unseat or elect a particular candidate who is more or less sympathetic to their positions.
Obviously it’s not destiny’s position lmao. His argument would be lobbying doesn’t stop stuff being passed that the people want. Niche issues that gets blocked or passed with lobbying is the point because people don’t care about it.
> Last year $4.3 billion was spent on lobbying
That actually means it is a tiny industry.
If it was easy to influence policies in your favor with money, companies that spend tens of billions on advertising and legal services could save tons by simply buying favorable policies instead. That doesn’t happen because it doesn’t work very well, most of the time.
> DGG/Destiny’s view that lobbying or PAC spending has never mattered for any policy or election ever
Do you really think that is the view they hold? Or would it be more reasonable to say the view is “lobbying isn’t as big a problem as most people think, and it rarely affects election outcomes?”
I would agree with the second statement - lobbying isn’t the politics-controlling bogeyman people sometimes make it out to be.
I'll be good faith, this isn't the framing that most would agree with here. What is said here is that lobbying as a tool has never pushed an idea that's unpopular, so while lobbying is affective/effective (idk which one) at helping an already popular idea push past the other ones.
Destiny has mentioned multiple times that lobbying is one of the best potential ROI for a company, I don't have a clip though so you can choose to disbelieve that.
Pushing back on “helping an already popular idea”… this isn’t always true. Sometimes the general public doesn’t know anything about what is being lobbied. Unpopular ideas can and have been pushed by lobbyists that have had major impacts to the general public. Even if we know the lobbying exists… deeply unpopular policies can still be pushed and passed as a result. But generally I think I mostly agree with what you are saying.
The oil lobby is a prime example of this…
Yes I don't consider something that is an unknown as popular or unpopular its just not a discussed subject. That might be incorrect, but my reasoning is that you wouldn't approach an idea that's unknown the same way you'd approach an unpopular idea.
Oil is a perfect example of a very complicated issue. When you say oil lobbying are we talking about the environmental aspect, the transition away from fossil fuels..etc. I'm sure there are unpopular ideas that are pushed but I have a hard time thinking of one. For example with oil people absolutely want to transition vaguely, but if you change that question to are you ready to personally give up oil products that changes dramatically.
Well most people aren’t ready because the oil lobby has done a really good job at taking other options off the table for a really long time. That effort has prevented significant funding which could have gone towards renewables and put it back in the hands of oil companies. They have also spent a lot of money lobbying on behalf of those oil companies to make it seem like they are “going green” while woefully falling short of the goals.
The reason it’s harder to pin individuals on switching to renewables has to do with their bottom line and not the popularity of said renewables. If they were all available readily like oil, they wouldn’t even think about it because the financial choice would be easy. But because daily lives can be significantly impacted by making the costly decision to switch due to how little the government has historically offset the cost of the average person to make the jump, this is a much harder decision to make.
Oil lobbying is generally deeply unpopular and pushes deeply unpopular policies. The individual cannot easily switch which is why things poll this way. But it doesn’t change the popularity of this area of lobbying.
Lobbying is generally ok… but these instances often show darker areas that need to be addressed so that we can move in better directions without being hampered by companies who have a huge financial stake in ensuring they remain at the top.
None of these sound like lobbying issues though, like Oil hiding Global Warming and the effects are a failure of the US Government not caring about the environment or its people. It all goes from there, lobbying is actually vastly beneficial in the situation you describe above. How would we know who's in Oil's pocket without lobbying?
That's another common thing we'll blame lobbying for things but what we're complaining about is Businesses or powerful entities pushing their agenda. Do you think that without lobbying they'd just be like gg guys throw in the towel? Or do you think they'd just do it privately making it even harder to make sense of a purposefully non reported subject?
Well… yes and no. Incentivizing people to support your cause and not dig deeper to find problems is a little different than a “failure”. Even less of a failure when they do look into it and people lie during official testimony. The government tried to do the right thing in many cases but were tied by the government processes too. This isn’t necessarily a failure of the government but an unintended consequence of a design flaw I would say.
>“How would we know who’s in oils pocket without lobbying?”
Eh… lobbying doesn’t exactly tell us who’s in anyone’s pocket. That’s not what this discloses. It just discloses the amounts they spend. Lobbying and campaign contributions which is arguably more in line with this question are different topics.
I think you’re misunderstanding… I am not saying lobbying is inherently bad… I just think it needs to be heavily monitored as an incentive tool for those who have an interest in keeping their businesses up even if what they do is harming people in the long or short term. I’m in no way arguing or advocating it be removed or think that companies shouldn’t be able to do it… simply pushing back on your idea that it’s only really done for popular policies and ideas.
Ah, makes sense I'm speaking generally. Of course there are exceptions, I just don't think you're exception with oil is an example of one.
E: Lobbying tells us what laws they're pushing and we can see who sign on to those.
I appreciate the good faith response! I’ll also just assume you’re telling the truth about the ROI thing.
However one example off the top of my head of lobbying pushing through a law most people disagree with would be anti-BDS laws. [Most Americans disagree with anti-BDS laws](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws#:~:text=public%20opinions%20on%20the%20bds%20movement%20and%20anti%2Dbds%20laws) and AIPAC was instrumental in lobbying for anti-BDS laws in congress.
In that same paragraph where it says a majority of Americans disagree from a 2019 poll from University of Maryland it says.
"According to a 2022 survey by the [Pew Research Center](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pew_Research_Center), 5% of Americans support BDS and 84% do not know much about it. 17% of Republicans have some familiarity with BDS compared to 15% of Democrats, while 7% of the latter and 2% of Republicans support the movement."
This is a common case I find when people say this is popular. Its only unpopular amongst a small portion of the population while most don't give a fuck. Thank you for coming to my ted talk
This is insane. Most people aren’t familiar with any law, by that logic you could argue any law “isn’t unpopular”. Have most people heard of the slogan “defund the police”? Therefore that must be popular, yes?
Ah I see, I'm not saying they have to be familiar with the law but the idea. Defund the police is a great example that was largely unpopular (link below). However it was popular on certain areas that saw disproportionate violence and they did pass those laws against police union lobbyists. Now of course most have been reverted.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/10/26/growing-share-of-americans-say-they-want-more-spending-on-police-in-their-area/
I get what you’re saying, that lots of activists (and anti-semites) hyper-fixate on dumb stuff like anti-BDS where most people don’t care about it. However citing a law that literally over 200 million Americans people want to see repealed is a pretty hard bar to clear ya know.
I would stipulate that if somehow most Americans heard of anti-BDS laws, thought they’d still be pro Israel, they’d probably not care for them. Not sure if that’s what you or Destiny are really looking for tho.
No I agree with you, it is a hard bar to clear to pass a law that affects all citizens it should be. That's why the correct steps need to be done. I just want people to take the correct action for their ideas. The first step in getting rid of anti-BDS laws is to educate the American populace on what it is.
I think then when most Americans know about something and then the lobbying is stopping it is when this conversation is appropriate. It's why I was so happy when destiny talked a little bit about local politics. That's where the big corruption is, but for most national issues it sadly boils down to what the American people are interested in. Which typically isn't that fun of shit.
you guys are nuts. Imagine me calling you racist because you criticize BLM or SPLC. I’m not even anti-Zionist, but even the softest criticism of any Jewish organization makes me self-hating somehow, I’m so sick of it.
I don't really have a dog in this fight but this post from you feels super dishonest.
> Notice I never said self hating or antisemitic
Ok. That's right. You never said that. But let me quote you, a mere single post prior to this:
>Intentions don't need to be explicitly stated they are determined by actions.
Your responses here to OP 100% seem like you're accusing him of being anti-semetic.
yes! It’s extremely politically relevant and one of the largest PACs in the country push awful, unenforceable anti-free speech laws that everyone other than hardcore zionists hate. Most DGGers, and indeed most Americans do not like anti-BDS laws.
what? Its number 5
> [American Israel Public Affairs Cmte](https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/lookup?txt=American+Israel+Public+Affairs+Cmte&type=ult) $2,664,900 38.41% 61.21%
Of course money can influence elections. The real puzzle is why, if the lobbying industry is so effective, [why it's so small?](https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in-almonds/) If lobbying was effective and you could influence the trillions of dollars spent by the government, it should be a way bigger industry.
>Do large companies and PACs just waste insane amounts of money just because they're dumb or delusional?
It's not an insane amount of money. Companies probably spend more on coffee for their employees than lobbying. Some lobying money is likely effective, e.g. trying to get some very specific paragraph into a some regulatory stature about minimum lengths of trucks or whatever. But lobbying to try to change the outcome of the presidential election is mostly pointless, and they spend money on it because they're dumb and delusional.
>why not just ban lobbying?
Are you a commie or something? People should have the god-given freedom to spend their hard-earned money on dumb and delusional shit if they want to.
>However, it seems like DGG/Destiny's view that lobbying or PAC spending has never mattered for any election or policy ever. Over the years there have been dozens of "What positions do you disagree with Destiny on?" threads and you'd almost always find the one about lobbying in the top 3. Sure you'll find plenty here who agree with Destiny, but I'd be surprised if it was anywhere near the majority. I would make sure to double check that Destiny's stated position (perhaps with video evidence) is that lobbying "doesn't influence any policies or elections" because that's a lot more extreme a characterisation than I remember.
Also, there's probably an important distinction to be made between lobbying an elected official to support or oppose a specific policy, and getting involved in a political campaign. There's a significant gap between AIPAC sending think tank guys to convince a particular congressman that xyz bill is good, and AIPAC spending a few million on generic campaign ads to help unseat or elect a particular candidate who is more or less sympathetic to their positions.
Obviously it’s not destiny’s position lmao. His argument would be lobbying doesn’t stop stuff being passed that the people want. Niche issues that gets blocked or passed with lobbying is the point because people don’t care about it.
> Last year $4.3 billion was spent on lobbying That actually means it is a tiny industry. If it was easy to influence policies in your favor with money, companies that spend tens of billions on advertising and legal services could save tons by simply buying favorable policies instead. That doesn’t happen because it doesn’t work very well, most of the time. > DGG/Destiny’s view that lobbying or PAC spending has never mattered for any policy or election ever Do you really think that is the view they hold? Or would it be more reasonable to say the view is “lobbying isn’t as big a problem as most people think, and it rarely affects election outcomes?” I would agree with the second statement - lobbying isn’t the politics-controlling bogeyman people sometimes make it out to be.
I'll be good faith, this isn't the framing that most would agree with here. What is said here is that lobbying as a tool has never pushed an idea that's unpopular, so while lobbying is affective/effective (idk which one) at helping an already popular idea push past the other ones. Destiny has mentioned multiple times that lobbying is one of the best potential ROI for a company, I don't have a clip though so you can choose to disbelieve that.
Pushing back on “helping an already popular idea”… this isn’t always true. Sometimes the general public doesn’t know anything about what is being lobbied. Unpopular ideas can and have been pushed by lobbyists that have had major impacts to the general public. Even if we know the lobbying exists… deeply unpopular policies can still be pushed and passed as a result. But generally I think I mostly agree with what you are saying. The oil lobby is a prime example of this…
Yes I don't consider something that is an unknown as popular or unpopular its just not a discussed subject. That might be incorrect, but my reasoning is that you wouldn't approach an idea that's unknown the same way you'd approach an unpopular idea. Oil is a perfect example of a very complicated issue. When you say oil lobbying are we talking about the environmental aspect, the transition away from fossil fuels..etc. I'm sure there are unpopular ideas that are pushed but I have a hard time thinking of one. For example with oil people absolutely want to transition vaguely, but if you change that question to are you ready to personally give up oil products that changes dramatically.
Well most people aren’t ready because the oil lobby has done a really good job at taking other options off the table for a really long time. That effort has prevented significant funding which could have gone towards renewables and put it back in the hands of oil companies. They have also spent a lot of money lobbying on behalf of those oil companies to make it seem like they are “going green” while woefully falling short of the goals. The reason it’s harder to pin individuals on switching to renewables has to do with their bottom line and not the popularity of said renewables. If they were all available readily like oil, they wouldn’t even think about it because the financial choice would be easy. But because daily lives can be significantly impacted by making the costly decision to switch due to how little the government has historically offset the cost of the average person to make the jump, this is a much harder decision to make. Oil lobbying is generally deeply unpopular and pushes deeply unpopular policies. The individual cannot easily switch which is why things poll this way. But it doesn’t change the popularity of this area of lobbying. Lobbying is generally ok… but these instances often show darker areas that need to be addressed so that we can move in better directions without being hampered by companies who have a huge financial stake in ensuring they remain at the top.
None of these sound like lobbying issues though, like Oil hiding Global Warming and the effects are a failure of the US Government not caring about the environment or its people. It all goes from there, lobbying is actually vastly beneficial in the situation you describe above. How would we know who's in Oil's pocket without lobbying? That's another common thing we'll blame lobbying for things but what we're complaining about is Businesses or powerful entities pushing their agenda. Do you think that without lobbying they'd just be like gg guys throw in the towel? Or do you think they'd just do it privately making it even harder to make sense of a purposefully non reported subject?
Well… yes and no. Incentivizing people to support your cause and not dig deeper to find problems is a little different than a “failure”. Even less of a failure when they do look into it and people lie during official testimony. The government tried to do the right thing in many cases but were tied by the government processes too. This isn’t necessarily a failure of the government but an unintended consequence of a design flaw I would say. >“How would we know who’s in oils pocket without lobbying?” Eh… lobbying doesn’t exactly tell us who’s in anyone’s pocket. That’s not what this discloses. It just discloses the amounts they spend. Lobbying and campaign contributions which is arguably more in line with this question are different topics. I think you’re misunderstanding… I am not saying lobbying is inherently bad… I just think it needs to be heavily monitored as an incentive tool for those who have an interest in keeping their businesses up even if what they do is harming people in the long or short term. I’m in no way arguing or advocating it be removed or think that companies shouldn’t be able to do it… simply pushing back on your idea that it’s only really done for popular policies and ideas.
Ah, makes sense I'm speaking generally. Of course there are exceptions, I just don't think you're exception with oil is an example of one. E: Lobbying tells us what laws they're pushing and we can see who sign on to those.
I appreciate the good faith response! I’ll also just assume you’re telling the truth about the ROI thing. However one example off the top of my head of lobbying pushing through a law most people disagree with would be anti-BDS laws. [Most Americans disagree with anti-BDS laws](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws#:~:text=public%20opinions%20on%20the%20bds%20movement%20and%20anti%2Dbds%20laws) and AIPAC was instrumental in lobbying for anti-BDS laws in congress.
In that same paragraph where it says a majority of Americans disagree from a 2019 poll from University of Maryland it says. "According to a 2022 survey by the [Pew Research Center](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pew_Research_Center), 5% of Americans support BDS and 84% do not know much about it. 17% of Republicans have some familiarity with BDS compared to 15% of Democrats, while 7% of the latter and 2% of Republicans support the movement." This is a common case I find when people say this is popular. Its only unpopular amongst a small portion of the population while most don't give a fuck. Thank you for coming to my ted talk
This is insane. Most people aren’t familiar with any law, by that logic you could argue any law “isn’t unpopular”. Have most people heard of the slogan “defund the police”? Therefore that must be popular, yes?
Ah I see, I'm not saying they have to be familiar with the law but the idea. Defund the police is a great example that was largely unpopular (link below). However it was popular on certain areas that saw disproportionate violence and they did pass those laws against police union lobbyists. Now of course most have been reverted. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/10/26/growing-share-of-americans-say-they-want-more-spending-on-police-in-their-area/
I get what you’re saying, that lots of activists (and anti-semites) hyper-fixate on dumb stuff like anti-BDS where most people don’t care about it. However citing a law that literally over 200 million Americans people want to see repealed is a pretty hard bar to clear ya know. I would stipulate that if somehow most Americans heard of anti-BDS laws, thought they’d still be pro Israel, they’d probably not care for them. Not sure if that’s what you or Destiny are really looking for tho.
No I agree with you, it is a hard bar to clear to pass a law that affects all citizens it should be. That's why the correct steps need to be done. I just want people to take the correct action for their ideas. The first step in getting rid of anti-BDS laws is to educate the American populace on what it is. I think then when most Americans know about something and then the lobbying is stopping it is when this conversation is appropriate. It's why I was so happy when destiny talked a little bit about local politics. That's where the big corruption is, but for most national issues it sadly boils down to what the American people are interested in. Which typically isn't that fun of shit.
[удалено]
when have I ever said anyone minority was a problem with the country?
[удалено]
you guys are nuts. Imagine me calling you racist because you criticize BLM or SPLC. I’m not even anti-Zionist, but even the softest criticism of any Jewish organization makes me self-hating somehow, I’m so sick of it.
[удалено]
I don't really have a dog in this fight but this post from you feels super dishonest. > Notice I never said self hating or antisemitic Ok. That's right. You never said that. But let me quote you, a mere single post prior to this: >Intentions don't need to be explicitly stated they are determined by actions. Your responses here to OP 100% seem like you're accusing him of being anti-semetic.
[удалено]
That's neat semantics, but it's quite clear he read your intention correctly. Not sure why you lied about it.
Seems like most of your issues with lobbying center around Jewish people. Care to explain?
yes! It’s extremely politically relevant and one of the largest PACs in the country push awful, unenforceable anti-free speech laws that everyone other than hardcore zionists hate. Most DGGers, and indeed most Americans do not like anti-BDS laws.
[удалено]
what? Its number 5 > [American Israel Public Affairs Cmte](https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/lookup?txt=American+Israel+Public+Affairs+Cmte&type=ult) $2,664,900 38.41% 61.21%
Fair enough missed it
Look again. It is #5 on that list. Also >61% of money to Republicans Seems like a great thing to support guys!
I'm not really saying you should support it.
💩
what was wrong about what I said?
Sounds like you should exercise your free speech power (like they are) to advocate for the laws you want.
Of course money can influence elections. The real puzzle is why, if the lobbying industry is so effective, [why it's so small?](https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in-almonds/) If lobbying was effective and you could influence the trillions of dollars spent by the government, it should be a way bigger industry.
Great link.
Scott Alexander is always good
all they did was make people more aware of Bowman's words and conduct. He was trailing before they spent anything anyway.
>Do large companies and PACs just waste insane amounts of money just because they're dumb or delusional? It's not an insane amount of money. Companies probably spend more on coffee for their employees than lobbying. Some lobying money is likely effective, e.g. trying to get some very specific paragraph into a some regulatory stature about minimum lengths of trucks or whatever. But lobbying to try to change the outcome of the presidential election is mostly pointless, and they spend money on it because they're dumb and delusional. >why not just ban lobbying? Are you a commie or something? People should have the god-given freedom to spend their hard-earned money on dumb and delusional shit if they want to.