Lobbying isn't inherently bad, you know. Congress needs experts for information.
I'm still at loss how that form of corruption is not just legal but apparently completely accepted in the US.
PACs and other organizations that do lobbying can spend money on an independent campaign (Citizen's United), but they can't give it to the candidate.
Way more insidious than campaign contributions is the "revolving door" where former elected officials are hired as lobbyists or consultants as a deferred award for their support during their tenure.
A web search turns up e.g. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2015/06...
Or more recently and pointedly, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-cbo-idUSKBN1...
Or you can find many other sources from the past 25 years discussing this.
The Congress should be robustly funding the Congressional Research Service, the Government Accountability Office, the Congressional Budget Office, committee staff, individual members’ staff, etc. But one party does not want the Congress to build up long-term institutional expertise or do careful independent analysis.
I've always been very skeptical of the fact that high ranking and influential politicians (eg: ones that a lobbyist would want to influence) always seem to have a "non-profit" charity foundation, while low ranking politicians (ones who aren't high enough on the totem pole to be worth influencing) infrequently or rarely have non-profit charity foundations.
It's always about loopholes and indirect payments.
Are you typing from the past? The 5k rule means nothing in today's world of dark money. A lobbyist can give unlimited amounts to third parties, organizations that will either support a campaign or not. Or they can just spend the money themselves. A billionaire may only be allowed to hand over 5k in cash, but they can spend millions on people to attack you online. So you listen to those lobbyists with the deepest pockets because they pose your greatest threat.
True, but...
> Congress needs experts for information.
That's what members and committees have staff for (and, in a broader sense, what the US government has an executive branch which Congress sets the rules governing and required to report to them for.)
Lobbyists don't work for Congress in the public interest, they work for actors that want Congress to serve those actors' private interests.
With the current set of laws in the US, it pretty much is. Also, congress needs Janitors.. but we don't excoriate ourselves over the impossibility of getting that work done, we just hire and pay a janitor for their work.
With the DNC and RNC raking in so much money every year, I find it amazingly hard to believe that they're lacking for expert advice.
Off the cuff, I am of the opinion that this is the root of the problem. We live in 2019, not 1819.. it's simply _not_ that hard for a congressperson to be "in touch" with their constituency.
> and convince them why passing this particular law is a good idea.
I don't want them _convinced_ I want them to be _informed_. There's a huge difference.
> I think you will find that just as many good laws were the result of a lobbyist
Yea, it _can_ work.. but we _should_ we rely on that? I would say given the high-mindedness of those who founded this country and the set of laws the left us, the answer should be a resounding "No."
For instance, I think think of lobbying broadly as the 'gears' of democracy, from one individual sending an email about an issue to an organized entity using their collective powers for change.
However, I think the distinction is most people think of lobbying as a special sort of 'relationship capitalization' that happens on the Hill; I'm not hiring Group X because they can best funnel my grassroots to the grasstops (though that exists) but rather I hire Group X because my account manager used to work at Dirksen and is friends with current target COS. This selling of connections, relationships, etc is what I think understandably makes people wary of lobbying.
Congress should hire some, then.
"I'm an expert, and I would like to give you some advice... for free, plus I'll give your campaign money!" should be suspicious.
Indirectly? In the post-Citizens United world, it's literally unbounded. Not to mention a lobbyist is free to:
1. Organize a fund-raises for the politicians campaign. They can't pay $100k directly, but they can sell 100 seats for $1000 each.
2. With a wink and hand=-shake, pffer the politician a job in the future.
What you seem to be describing - disguising a donation from one individual to a politician that is over the contribution limit as several donations from different many different people - was and still is illegal.
The fund-raiser would also be legal. There is no masking of donations - those attending the fund-raiser do pay for their tickets. Nothing prevents a lobbyist from doing the legwork to make the fund-raiser happen.
Main point being, despite legal limits on direct donations, there are many ways a lobbyist can facilitate the flow of money from special interests into the pockets of politicians.
You're still misrepresenting reality and when you say that this functions to "facilitate the flow of money from special interests into the pockets of politicians." This money never enters the pockets of politicians. If that happens, it is a violation of the law.
Definitely certain PACs benefit certain politicians over others. A PAC organized to promote environmentalism is probably going to help Democrats a lot more than Republicans. But it is not correct in any way to say that this money is funneled to the politicians themselves. The politician does not hold the purse strings of PAC money, the PAC can decide at any time to stop promoting items aligned with that politician.