The problems that have arisen with « lobbying » are not really about lobbying itself, but about problems with the political system (as well as perhaps some controversial court cases). Another issue that people are raising is the idea that corporations bribe politicians with money. It is already illegal. Donations in return are also illegal. Third, unregistered and illegal lobbyists can be prosecuted. The Department of Justice has referred more than 2,000 cases of unregistered lobbyists to the Clerk of the House, but due to the staffing crisis, it has simply not been able to prosecute these individuals. The Brookings Institute estimates that about 9% of lobbyists are not properly registered. Basically, there are so many stressful jobs that these employees have to do, and they can`t physically manage their resources. The problem is when there is a quid pro quo. Or an exchange of favors. It is already illegal.
Corruption is already illegal. So, is lobbying, as technically described in a dictionary, bad? Not really, I guess. Is their current practice toxic to our democracy by shifting the interests of the public onto the interests of a few powerful people? Yes, absolutely. It should therefore be heavily regulated and monitored. First, it directly reduces the number of lobbyists. About 90 percent of congressional employees quit their jobs and end up becoming lobbyists. More than half have resigned in three years. This means that the remaining employees are overworked and have to work 80 to 100 hours a week. You also receive only $30,000 a year, compared to a salary of several hundred thousand dollars available in a lobbying firm. Thirty thousand dollars are compared to visitors to the Congress parking lot earning $49,000 a year.
While I agree that lobbying is essential, it is very similar to the Campaign Finance Act in its problem. Both greatly facilitate the communication of certain messages, which does not automatically determine the outcome, but affects the balance so much that it can feel it, especially for the many subjects and candidates where the money of companies regularly exceeds that of individuals. It is legal because it is expressly protected by the 1st Amendment. The right to ask their government to make amends for grievances. That`s all lobbying is. What is true is that companies can often spend much more money on lobbying than grassroots organizations, and as such, they are able to buy much more influence, advocacy, and access, which is the real benefit of lobbying. It is important to note that lobbying is not the problem, lobbying is crucial for organizations and individuals to voice their concerns and communicate directly with their representatives. But the problem is that big business controls much of the lobbying process that crowds out public interest groups. How big is the problem? Business lobbies outperform public interest lobbies (environment, citizens, trade unions) in a 16:1 ratio. In addition, business lobbies account for more than 75% of all lobbying expenses. There are many good answers in this thread, and I have nothing to add to the substance of the answers.
I would like to note one thing, and that is that if you search for this topic on Google, you may come across an article by Zephyr Teachout, a law professor who is currently running for NY AG. In this article, she claims that lobbying has been banned in several states. what was illegal was contingency fees for lobbyists. OIE lobbyists could not be paid according to whether their lobbying was successful. Lobbying in its basic form is the communication of your position to your representative. Every time someone calls their representative to tell them that they like what they have done or that they should vote a certain way, it is lobbying. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with lobbying, it is as fundamental an extension of freedom of expression as possible. What extremely wealthy companies and ODs do is donate to campaigns or support SuperPAPs, hoping that this will lead their opinion to a more favorable outcome. This is not in itself lobbying, but it is often accompanied by lobbying when the donor asks the politician to vote in a certain way. The problem here, however, is not lobbying, but the ability of these groups to give these large sums of money. TLDR lobbying is a good thing, it is the way voters inform their representatives about how to vote, which is an essential part of a democratic republic. Our system certainly has problems with corporate spending, but the solution is certainly not to make lobbying illegal.
When the article came out, there were all kinds of crows about it, and since it ran into so much the obvious effects of the First Amendment, I took the time to review their article, and behold, what had been illegal, what had been a success fee for lobbyists. OIE lobbyists could not be paid according to whether their lobbying was successful. Anyone who works in legal or tax law knows this well: there are all sorts of areas where success fees are zero compared to public policy, but their absurd reasoning would have us believe that it is illegal to be a tax lawyer simply because tax lawyers or CPAs cannot receive contingency fees for certain work. The form of lobbying we use is toxic to a democracy. Having a group that represents your concerns directly in front of your representatives is not bad. But in reality, most Americans don`t have a group of lobbyists working for their interests. However, companies do. Anyone who has large sums of money does it. In this way, they have lobbyists who convey and convey their wishes and whims to various representatives.
The idea that these meetings are not transactional is naïve at best. What reason would a politician have to hear from Exxon Mobile lobbyists about their own direct voters? Well, because Exxon`s mobile lobbyist can promise, indirectly or directly, that this representative should vote a certain way, Exxon would like to donate to his re-election campaign. And if that representative leaves office, this lobbying firm would like to offer them a nice, comfortable job. And no, it`s not a bribe. The job of a lobbyist is to talk to government officials. Paying them money is highly illegal. It doesn`t contribute to campaigns, but there are actually quite a few restrictions on what lobbyists can legally do in this regard. Even Trump has defended the idea that those in public office should be prevented from working for a lobbying firm.
Of course, this is an extreme rule that should never be implemented and will not be implemented. There are steps the government can take to limit the influence of money in politics. One thing I would like to see is that campaign donations are completely eliminated. Each applicant should receive the same government-sponsored funding and can only use that funding in certain ways. It should be heavily regulated. Each candidate must have exactly the same number and type of ads. Nothing should be different. The only difference then is the substance of their candidacy. It should therefore be heavily regulated and monitored. Some people get really good at it. Some people get to know all the players in Washington or City Hall or elsewhere, which makes it much easier to get things moving. They develop relationships.
Some of these relationships are made at lunch or in the same clubs or through fraternities. Also manifestly unconstitutional: limiting the number of ads limits the number of people you are talking about; Restricting ad types limits the way you speak. See above. It`s a bit vague, but generally laws that restrict how people engage in political communication are almost always unconstitutional: if you control the format, you can control the content and persuasion. We already have it; what you see as « differences other than the substance of your candidacy » are the manifestations of that substance. and they can only use those funds in certain ways. Second, it indirectly reduces the number of lobbyists. More staff means members of Congress need fewer lobbyists to fill their positions. Higher salaries mean that these employees will stay more frequently, so their experience is comparable to that of lobbyists. One thing I would like to see is that campaign donations are completely eliminated. It goes back further than that, buddy.
Look at the Dartmouth case of 1819. Within the first generation of the republic, the court concluded that a group of people acting together may have certain characteristics of an individual. Since people cannot be prohibited from spending their own money on political ends, such a ban would favor some interests over others and limit the number of challengers to elected positions, making these prohibitions completely unconstitutional, regardless of the other complementary system that has been established. This is not corruption. This is essentially professional advocacy. .