It's frustrating and disheartening to read things like this, and yet the evil business side of me can't help but think, "damn that's evil but so smart of them..." :(
This is oft-repeated, but doesn't stand up to any sort of logical scrutiny. You think there aren't dozens of parties with interests adverse to Intuit who could pony up $10 million to lobby for the opposite position? I think of this every time someone mentions lobbying by telecom or media companies: for what Facebook paid for WhatsApp, it could purchase all of the lobbying efforts of the top 10 D.C. lobbying firms for the next half-century. You think the Facebooks and Googles of the world are above buying legislation in business-critical areas like telecom policy or copyright if it were that cheap?
What lobbying does is help you tap into a base of support that already exists. In the case of Intuit, their lobbying dollars go to supporting Republicans and Libertarians who don't want to make filing taxes easy. The cost and burden of filing taxes is a major hammer people use to chip away at the whole concept of progressive taxation. It's a major selling point of proposals like the flat tax or consumption taxes. In a system with employer withholding, it's the only major reminder of how much the government is taking out of your paycheck each year.
That $10 million doesn't guarantee Intuit favorable legislation--it leverages a deep divide in the polity that happens to advance Intuit's specific interests. And at the end of the day, almost all effective lobbying, at least at the federal level, takes that shape.
$10 million is nothing; any lobbying group worth a shit can cough up that. You could probably fucking crowdfund it if you found a cause that 'the internet' cared enough about. But to make a difference you also need to convince your congressperson that you also have a stick and are able/willing to use it. Good luck crowdfunding that. A company like facebook has the money to have a stick, but these sort of tech companies are typically politically inactive enough to raise doubt that they would have the motivation ever use their stick.
How are these not the same exact thing? I don't think anyone is claiming that lobbying is akin to submitting a payment for immediate legislation approval. We are all well aware that there are politicians and voter bases that may side with a company like Intuit. But in either case, the money is being used to influence legislation, whether that's a sure shot or to tip the scales. Rather than legislate based on the merit of both opinions (eg. paid vs free tax filing), companies are introducing often personal financial incentives for politicians to dig their heels into the ground by claiming that a particular opinion is Right and True. Deepening the divide does nothing more than cause people to bury their heads further into their ideologies and works against progress.
Second, legislation isn't based on "the merit of both opinions" but how both opinions fit into the preferences and ideologies of the polity. And in a democracy, that's probably precisely what legislation should be based on.
Third, keeping the above two points in mind, I think it's fundamentally different to say that lobbying "guarantees favorable legislation" and to say that lobbying exploits an ideological divide in the polity that "results in favorable legislation."
The former seems wrongful. The second, in my mind, seems entirely appropriate. I think it's fine to spend money to remind elected officials that a particular, minor, policy decision (making taxes easier to file) will undermine their efforts to make a different, major policy decision consistent with the preferences of their voter base (lowering tax rates, reducing the progressiveness of the tax code).
You say the most fantastical things sometimes. I know you're aware of what "Quid pro quo" means, but you apparently must believe it to be some abstract conceptual thing without any practical use.
I just know more about lobbying than most people who harp about it.
> I know you're aware of what "Quid pro quo" means
What quid pro quo is involved in lobbying? To me, a "quid pro quo" is "here's a $5 million donation and if you happen to support our legislation, that would be great." That's not lobbying, and that's illegal. Lobbying is hiring someone to tell an elected official: "if you support these environmental laws, it will affect the coal industry and 1,000 people in your district might find themselves out of work." That's not a quid pro quo to me.
Well then, enlighten us all as to why it is such a lucrative business despite your assertion that lobbyists primarily write persuasive letters extolling the virtues of employment in the coal mines.
If you're not just being obtuse, and really cannot see the connection between campaign finance and political influence, then it's time to question the source of your lobbying knowledge. Have you merely collected a large number of facts pertaining to lobbying?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
relevant Onion from this week:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/elderly-lobbyist-always-dro...
Note: (I'm Outside US)
http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/27/turbotax-maker-funnels-mill...
Deductions are the hard part, which is not govt tracked.
But this kind of thing can often backfire if there's a public outcry and then it won't have been so smart.
Citizens of the US haven't stood up to any immoral corporate practice and had a significant impact in decades. For example, the makers of OxyContin could (completely hypothetically) manufacture an opiate so powerful it rivals heroin, encourage doctors to prescribe it at many times the necessary rate for true medical pain-relief, watch millions of lives get ruined by addiction to their supposedly safe drug, and no group of people will ever get together in protest to put more than a couple percent dent in their profits.