Seriously? Lobbyists are paid to talk to politicians. They represent interest groups, and make their case in DC and other places. They do make campaign contributions, but that does not represent anywhere near the same level of influence as an actual person to person, quid pro quo bribe. There are actual places in the world where bribery is rampant, and if you lived in one of those places, you really wouldn't need to ask this question.
> They do make campaign contributions, but that does not represent anywhere near the same level of influence as an actual person to person, quid pro quo bribe.
I bet it would have the same level of influence for people whose primary goal is to gain political power, and I bet those people (not by coincidence) tend to be the ones who become politicians.
Local level bribery might not take the same forms that it takes in other countries, but the top level bribery is easy to see. We have massively expensive elections that are used to direct money towards a massively expensive system of 'election contractors' all of whom were elected officials at some point that now receive dark money via this system.
Of course, compared to our lobbying system, where people like Joe Lieberman now work, taking money to inform other elected officials that if they play the game right, they'll also make millions from corporations 'lobbying' the government. They'll help to make sure that you have a long career with lots of attention by funding your campaigns.
Lobbying sounds great, but like many things, we've perverted it.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying lobbying is great. I'm merely trying to keep some perspective that lobbying, while not ideal, is still much better than actual bribery.
When I see a politician selling their constituents up the river to a special interest group that also happens to fund his re-election (or threaten funding of his opponents), I don't actually feel much different then if it were a regular quid pro quo corruption arrangement. It happens all the fucking time.
In fact, that they aren't breaking any laws when doing so makes me feel more incensed about it.
Special interest groups generally can’t “fund his re-election” because it’s illegal for corporations to donate to candidates. It might be worth considering whether your belief that “it happens all the fucking time” is based on facts or some sort of inchoate narrative you’ve picked up over the years.
> Can't they can give money to PACs which then give to candidates?
No, but they can sponsor a PAC, which frees up more of the money a PAC raises from individual sources for donations to candidates; this is different only if you ignore the fungibility of money.
(They can also spend directly or via a “SuperPAC” on advocacy that is for/against candidates but legally not coordinated with candidates, and SuperPAC activity in practice is often coordinated with campaigns via public signalling and other mechanisms.)
They can’t contribute to PACs either. PACs just pool individual contributions. They can give to SuperPACs, but SuperPACs can’t contribute to candidates.
The PAC are required not to coordinate and they can be scrupulous about never being in the same room as the candidate. But they don't need to coordinate to e.g. run a TV ad campaign endorsing a candidate who's done something they like.
They can hire the candidate after his term in office to 'consult', or give paid speeches, or lobby for then, or play golf all day. Or just cut a check to his charitable foundation, out of the goodness of their hearts. (A recent presidential candidate's family has hit four out of five of those.)
They can fund a PAC that either endorses, or opposes a candidate. The difference between funding their campaign directly, and funding a PAC that campaigns on a candidate's behalf is a fig leaf.
Tell me - in practice - how do these things differently from direct funding of a campaign?
