Hacker News Reader

> Lobbying is how businesses talk to government.

And if it were just talk, I think people would understand, but it's the mode of discussion, and obvious quid-pro-quos that make it so alien and unpalatable to the actual electorate. And by that I mean everything that isn't a discussion in your office or theirs, with the same treatment they'd have were they to meet with a voter. A cup of coffee and some homemade cake, wonderful. An expense-paid weeklong fishing expo in Bermuda? Nah.

It's hard to have this conversation while the current US administration pillages everything not screwed down and openly give themselves immunity from prosecution, but lawmakers at all levels of all branches should serve the electorate, not themselves. That's the job.

I'm sure your company only does positive, representative things, but the relationship some of your peers have with politicians and judges is unacceptable.

Ok, but does the government generally decide based on what’s in the best interest of the people, or the best interest of those who paid the most in the lobbying.

I think the answer to that should tell you how good or bad lobbying is.

It seems the vTaiwan / pol.is platform has the right idea, because it incorporates the interests of all stakeholders:

government, business, AND citizens

> Lobbying is how businesses talk to government. And I get that that sounds nasty—and sometimes it is nasty—-but it’s necessary.

Sure. Its a just a shame people don't get a chance to talk too. I don't want a de-anonymised internet, for example, even if most businesses and the governance system think this is a 'good'.

> threatens your business, you want to be able to tell the government in realtime.

How nice! I wish normal people also had a “realtime” direct line to the government.

> Well, a big push from businesses got the rule amended and eventually removed, which is better for everyone. That’s lobbying.

Why would such efforts even be necessary if government would actually listen to its constituents?

> When we think of a “lobbyist” we think of Big Tobacco or Big Tax Prep Software

When we think of a “lobbyist” we think of more money = more access = more chances you’re being taken seriously. That’s the problem.

p.s. this is not directly to you personally, it’s about the system. I mean no offense.

Not offended! So if you took money out of it, what would you do to substitute?

Actually, we don’t need to speculate here. There are many, less corrupt, developed countries where lobbying isn't as deeply intertwined with political money as US, and we can look at them to see what the substitute is. For example in France, corporate political donations are simply banned, and campaigns are publicly funded. In Nordic countries like Sweden, the substitute is institutionalized consultation. Of course corruption exists, but how deep is what practically matters here! So the answer is, access is granted based on your relevance to the issue, not by how much money you can spend and people would be voting for the government that can do this better when they see their voices are actually heard.

> Remember the rule change to the amortization of software expenses, which inadvertently would have killed thousands of software companies?

While I’m sure this was lobbied heavily against by many companies, I don’t think that’s what did it. This was bad legislation done on purpose to poison the next administration, then undone as convenient.

Forgive my ignorance, but if you're not paying off the right people, how are you lobbying for change?

What's the mechanism, if not handing people cash and benefits if they support your cause?

Explaining why the course of action the lobbyist is lobbying for gets the decision maker more of what he already wants.

People educate lawmakers without contributing money all them time. Think about AI…how many lawmakers could even tell you what a token is, much less how AI should be regulated? They learn from experts.

I love this comment. It is extremely accurate to my experience.