Subtlety matters. Calling lobbying bribery is apathy, which is uninteresting. Even worse, it’s ineffective.
> If a politician receives donations in any form, in order to push for legislation that may benefit the donors, how is it any different from bribery?
So, should I donate to a mayoral campaign that aligns with my beliefs? Is all money in politics evil, or is it just a matter of degrees? What if that mayoral candidate is a “political outsider” who relies on “grassroots support” to enable them to quit their job and focus on the campaign?
I’m an expert in my field. Should I inform my elected leaders on the nuances of that field when they write legislation that relates to it? Or should laws only be written by the ignorant? How ignorant should they be?
Trade is a quid pro quo scheme. Pretending all exchanges of value are the same is, again, uninteresting. How can such a position be engaged? And to what end?
Where’s the line between bribery and democracy?
It’s not easy to draw. Calling lobbying bribery is an apathetic oversimplification. It’s uninteresting and isn’t a position that can be engaged constructively.
> So, should I donate to a mayoral campaign that aligns with my beliefs?
There is a very clear distinction between donating and lobbying. Political donations are typically not driven to any specific end, whereas lobbying seeks to influence specific legislation.
Saying that lobbyists look to “inform” the “ignorant” legislators is naive and disregards the fact that congress and senate people have enough staff at their disposal to do the necessary research to pass legislation.
Lobbyists aren’t experts. They are marketers. It seems that to you, a lobbyist is an expert in a field, like a doctor is an expert in medicine. In reality, a lobbyist is more akin to a drug sales rep, a marketer. Do sales reps accurately inform doctors about drugs, or do they try to get them to prescribe a certain brand?
Lobbying is then legalised bribery. In fact, the US is one of the few developed countries where blatant private enterprise interference is allowed at all levels of government.
Subtlety matters. Calling lobbying bribery is apathy, which is uninteresting. Even worse, it’s ineffective.
> If a politician receives donations in any form, in order to push for legislation that may benefit the donors, how is it any different from bribery?
So, should I donate to a mayoral campaign that aligns with my beliefs? Is all money in politics evil, or is it just a matter of degrees? What if that mayoral candidate is a “political outsider” who relies on “grassroots support” to enable them to quit their job and focus on the campaign?
I’m an expert in my field. Should I inform my elected leaders on the nuances of that field when they write legislation that relates to it? Or should laws only be written by the ignorant? How ignorant should they be?
Trade is a quid pro quo scheme. Pretending all exchanges of value are the same is, again, uninteresting. How can such a position be engaged? And to what end?
Where’s the line between bribery and democracy?
It’s not easy to draw. Calling lobbying bribery is an apathetic oversimplification. It’s uninteresting and isn’t a position that can be engaged constructively.