It would be more interesting to see a headline like that
> Lobbyists to be banned from European parliament
> Lobbyists to be banned from European parliament
This is a hand-out to the rich. Unless you plan on making individual carve-outs for every NGO and citizen group.
And who, do you think, finances those "NGO"s and "citizen group"s ?
The solution is clear: everyone needs to lobby for their interests and the people should all fund (crowdsourcing) organizations that lobby for politics they want done.
Transparency of lobbying, while benefitial is not a solution.
This is democracy and free society in action, indeed. As long as it is transparent there is nothing not to "like".
That's why this ban in Amazon lobbyists is actually bad news but not surprising if you've been following how the EU has been evolving.
Corporations aren't citizens though. Politics exists to represent the people, not the corporations. They shouldn't have any influence over politics. The economy is not a goal on its own, it's only there for the benefit of the citizens.
And they already have a really heavy influence in favour of their goals in terms of all their employees, shareholders etc who can vote. They already have adequate representation that way.
We're not as bad as the US yet with all the heavy campaign contributions with strings attached, but we don't want to end up there either. So I'm very happy the huge multinationals get some pushback.
There are tons of (non-rich) lobbying groups like this, for things like climate action, labour rights, consumer rights, etc.
Of course, it's probably correct that lobbying is probably skewed towards the rich. And maybe we need to correct for that. But then the question becomes "should we correct the influence of money in lobbying, and if so, how?"
> "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal loaves of bread."
I forgot about the impotence of Greenpeace, the NRA, the ACLU and EFF, of Susan B. Anthony.
Have you met a lawmaker, or been involved in the passage of a law? The state of civics education in America is such that a minority of folks understand the first rule of politics: showing up is half the battle. Unfortunately, pitching nihilism is a good way to keep the other side from bothering.
No need for Constitutional amendments when the healthcare and insurance industry in the USA (the biggest spenders in lobbying afaik) can lobby politicians to block legislation setting caps on drug prices paid by the government through ACA, or to keep the dysfunctional system of health insurance you live under.
Let me know when citizens can spend some US$ 8-10b on lobbying for universal healthcare, just like the combined spending of healthcare + insurance industries...
And just a quick edit: setting the NRA as an example of citizens' association lobbying is a bit tone deaf given what they do for the weapons industry, it's another very good case for how lobbying can be detrimental to society by hiding big corporations interests behind what is seemingly a citizens' association.
Edit as a form of last reply since I got rate limited:
You edited the comment to remove the sentence saying "state or federally" which implied to me you were talking about the USA. A bit of a dishonest response after such edit...
I don’t. I asked about lawmakers and laws.
I have in America, a few European states and India. The people who benefit from restrictions on lobbying are those with personal access to power. Because the lobbyists let the little people and those faraway get the access they believe they earned, bought or were born into.
Normal people don't have the time, money, or connections to effectively lobby. The best that you can do is kick a few bucks to some NGO that seems to be in line with your stance on whatever issue. But that's really just making the whole problem worse rather than working to having a government that is better at representing the people.
Yes, they do. And many Americans are good at reaching out to their electeds.
Most aren’t, however, which makes cutting a few bucks to an aligned NGO more comfortable than picking up the phone.
I can't wine and dine them, kick large amounts of money to their favorite charities, take them on expensive "junkets", etc.
We don't let children vote, or in some places the incarcerated and/or felons, and we judiciously regulate how and when others can vote.
If we can regulate voting this way surely we can regulate lobbying.
We absolutely regulate lobbying.
Sure. Perhaps the greatest asset the over-the-top lobbyists have is the ban-lobbying bunch.
It's a whole different world of probal that would require an authoritarian state with an absolute control over people's lives... And at that point it becomes moot.
You realize that lobbying is literally hiring the polician in your NGO, before and after his tennure, right ? /s
Lobbying is legalized corruption, by the rich and for the rich.