The source of corruption is through PACs that support candidates without the candidates consent or guidance (either ostensibly or actually).
You can either give a candidate a few thousand dollars directly or you can spend an unlimited amount of money telling people how great you think the candidate is. Only the former is lobbying.
Money in Politics, especially when it's perfectly legal, is a massive, massive problem. It's literally impossible to get fair and impartial leaders who will make decisions in the interest of the common person when corporations are spending millions and millions.
Right now a judge sitting on the highest court in the entire country is hearing a case involving a company who openly and directly paid to have her elected into that position. I don't care if that person is from the right or left (or middle), there is no universe where that is a good thing, or should be allowed.
Having a Supreme Court Justice you paid preside over your court case sounds like a very perverted form of Justice under Democracy to me.
Politicians care about getting re-elected. That's the power fulcrum or pressure point.
Which shouldn’t be surprising as politics covers such a wide range of issues it would be strange for most of them to have strong views on every issue. Frankly it’s people who don’t care one way or the other are who you try and influence.
Lobbying includes all attempts to influence legislators.
PACs are just a legal fiction to circumvent a law, the effect is the same: support those who's policies you prefer.
That's illegal.
The advertising is given no strings attached. The only incentive that you (the politician) have to vote for things that favor the company is that, if you don't, they may not advertise for you next time.
The "fun" part of this whole thing is that the money those companies spend isn't really the issue, it's the fact that the money is helpful to influence people. Comparatively, if a person of non-political celebrity tweets that they like a candidate, they might muster much more influence than say, Exxon could for the same candidate. Now that candidate is just as beholden to the interests of that celebrity as one might be to a corporation.
In effect, the PAC money really is just taking money away from influential individuals and commoditizing it.
I, personally, don't really see a difference. It's not like pre-Citizens United America was some sort of paradise. Most people perceive it as worse but I just see it as different. I, personally, still have a similar amount of political power and influence.
And also that if you do, you may be able to go and work for them for good compensation when your political career is over.
When an oil company buys advertising to a candidate, both parties know it's going to be in exchange for votes that favor the oil company. To claim anything else is bad faith. I THINK we're in agreement here?
If so, I don't think it's correct to call it "no strings attached". The politician might not be contractually bound to votes in favor of oil, but if they want to still have a job at the end of their term, they're somewhat forced to.