5 ms·

Lobbying expenditures are given to lobbyists not politicians. You're primarily paying for the salary of some humanities or social science majors and their trave

by Aunche 2mo ago

Lobbying expenditures are given to lobbyists not politicians. You're primarily paying for the salary of some humanities or social science majors and their travel expenses, which isn't that much money. This should be a basic fact. If those who spend a good portion of time being angry at lobbyists yet intelligent enough to make mid-six figures conflate bribery with lobbying, it should be no surprise the corporations have captured the government. The general public has essentially zero civic understanding while corporations are able to hire the few that do.

user- 2mo ago
Can you explain what you mean by >some humanities or social science majors this? Im sensing some meaning towards you calling out their degrees. Your comment implies you have some deep civic understanding so can you expland on what your POV is? Im not american and would like to konw.
throwaw12 2mo ago
> Lobbying expenditures are given to lobbyists not politicians. You're primarily paying for the salary of some humanities or social science majors and their travel expenses, which isn't that much money. I don't think these are the only expenses, why should politician listen to them if lobbyists are not promising them support in next elections in the form of marketing, payments for expenses and so on
- groundzeros2015 2mo ago
  They are interested in learning about topics from credible people that impact businesses and voters, If the only motivation you can ascribe is making money or relection, it is circular. Wealthy people spend money to become politicians.
  - throwaw12 2mo ago
    > They are interested in learning about topics from credible people Honestly, you surprised me with this statement alone. interested in learning? do you think Trump wants to learn anything from AIPAC? or Pharma lobby or Military Industrial complex? What do politicans want to learn from Military Industrial complex or AIPAC lobby for example? What's there, that politicians don't know already?
    - mr_toad 2mo ago
      > What's there, that politicians don't know already? They need to be ‘reminded’ of the issues that ‘campaign contributions’ are contingent upon.
    - groundzeros2015 2mo ago
      They want to know what voters and business leaders care about. It’s in their interest for their reputation and succees.
    - undersuit 2mo ago
      What about Crypto lobbying. What do you think switched Trump's position on cryptocurrencies, did he learn you can scam people legally?
      - throwaw12 2mo ago
        You are right, my apologies. Indeed he learned something from them
      - groundzeros2015 2mo ago
        I suspect he learned it was popular with his base.
    - balarjin 2mo ago
      > > They are interested in learning about topics from credible people > Honestly, you surprised me with this statement alone. interested in learning? > do you think Trump wants to learn anything from AIPAC? > or Pharma lobby or Military Industrial complex? Trump is unusually sure of himself. But no man rules alone: There is a massive org under every president trying to run a government. I know for a fact that people two levels of management under Trump (i.e. Trump is their manager's manager) do take meetings with people who lobby on the issue of health care policy and (for and against) military procurement. I would be shocked if people who are for/against working with Isreal are never in a room with anyone who can set policy. Imagine that it is your job to come up with policy for a bug expensive government program: The VA hospital system, a military procurement program that buys airplanes, the part of the state department focused on MENA, etc. If someone asks to meet, claiming that they did academic/technical work which shows you can get a better result with a policy change, you will take that meeting. Examples: 1. An MD researcher shows you can cut drug costs by switching one medication for another. 2. An engineer has reason to believe current stealth coatings on fighter planes won't work against China's missiles in 5 years. 3. An economist thinks that an ally (Isreal, Korea, etc.) have demographics that will stop them from being able to field an army within 20 years. You should go into these meetings with skepticism, and there is a 90%-99% chance the person's idea is bad. But if an idea is good/correct/important, and you blew him off, your boss will be angry, and your career will be over. Most people in government want to solve problems (and get credit for doing so). Most problems governments face have hard tradeoffs that voters don't understand/care about. Voters want unlimited healthcare at no cost to themselves, 100% success thwarting terrorists with no spying on citizens, military supremacy without paying much for weapons, etc. People asked to solve these problems are DESPERATE for new ideas to allow voters to see that they are getting good outcomes. Telling them you have a way around a hard tradeoff is music to their ears.
- andrewla 2mo ago
  > why should politician listen to them if lobbyists are not promising them support in next elections in the form of marketing, payments for expenses and so on Mostly because those things are directly illegal. Lobbying organizations (and PACs and SuperPACs etc.) are very limited in what they can provide either as direct monetary contributions or in-kind gifts to a candidate. The restrictions here are basically the same as those on an individual, but usually with more strict reporting requirements and lower limits. The marketing aspect is the only thing that they can legally provide, and that's less a lobbying function than a PAC function, and they are not allowed to coordinate with the campaign or the candidate on this.
  - qwytw 2mo ago
    Well a funding a PAC that supports a specific candidate/party who gets elected because of that effectively accomplishes the same thing. Of course the salary the company "buys" for them isn't exactly in the same magnitude as a direct bribe could potentially be (on the upper end at least).
  - testing22321 2mo ago
    > Mostly because those things are directly illegal Ah yes, said politician will just host a $100,000 a head luncheon so nobody is “bribing” them. That would be dirty.
    - andrewla 2mo ago
      Yes, you're right, they could just do this, and then spend the rest of their term thrown out of Congress and rotting in prison. That is, they can hold such a lunch, but they can't pocket the money personally or even have the money contributed towards their campaign. Pocketing the money personally is just bribery, having it contribute to their campaign would violate the contribution limits (typically ~$10,000 per election max, though less than that in reality because the limit is split between primary and general). You're right to be slightly suspicious because these lunches do exist. But they don't go to the campaign or the candidate, they can go to PACs and SuperPACs or to the party. In tern, PACs and SuperPACs cannot give this money to the candidate or the campaign (same limits as above with higher reporting requirements) and cannot coordinate campaign messaging. This is not to say that corruption doesn't exist -- just that this simplistic form of it does not exist. You'll have to dig deeper than looking at lobbying activities to find the actual corruption, and it's usually masked in revolving door arrangements, speaking fees, and bulk sales of vanity books. But none of that can go through the typical lobbying system because it's too tightly regulated and tracked.
- nitwit005 2mo ago
  Even ignoring financial issues, people are generally willing to talk to major groups or industries. You tend not to get re-elected if you ignore everyone.
- Aunche 2mo ago
  It's not as if being elected is the end all and be all to being a politician. Politicians have a vague idea of how they want to shape society, but they can't be experts in completely unrelated subjects of healthcare, military, AI infrastructure etc. A good lobbyist will help a politician achieve these goals in the field of their expertise (or at least try to convince the politician that they're helping).
  - throwaw12 2mo ago
    Why lobbyist can't just present their ideas publicly, like do a public free lessons to politicians and anyone who wants to attend, if they're so eager to teach politicians? Let them publicly say whatever they're preaching to politicians, and instead of 'funding' politicians directly, let them just teach everyone all at once. I would love to hear what AIPAC teaches politicians
    - anthuswilliams 2mo ago
      That's literally what 90% of lobbying is. Powerpoint presentations to Congressional staffers, econometrics research publications, policy panels and conferences, and so on. Not everything is campaign donations and super PACs.
      - throwaw12 2mo ago
        you can be good law obeying citizen 99% of the time and in 1% of the time bribe someone to do illegal things. what's your point with 90%? Why any lobbyists should have 1:1 time with a politician, what are they hiding?
        twoodfin 2mo ago
        Why any lobbyists should have 1:1 time with a politician, what are they hiding? For one thing because it’s a right in the First Amendment, there next to freedom of religion and speech. If you have a grievance, you have a right to petition to have it redressed. Like other rights recognized in the Constitution, courts have interpreted it broadly, to include such things as a right for a private citizen to meet 1:1 with a willing public citizen.
smallmancontrov 2mo ago
The faintest whiff of a potential incentive wafted beneath the nose of an entrepreneur is enough to bring into motion the invisible hand. This is HN, that's what we do here. We assume that it is the same for politicians. Lobbyists are in the business of wafting. It is quite enough for them to bring credible rumors of corporate agenda and plans to spend in pursuit of them. Political entrepreneurs will move to capture that spend without a single back-alley transaction involving burlap sacks of cash with comically large $ signs printed on the side. It has the same effect, though.
bko 2mo ago
How should politicians be informed on these topics for which they are attempting to regulate? What's the alternative? I think its entirely reasonable that the industries affected by regulations spend money to combat incorrect information like water usage of data centers.
- triceratops 2mo ago
  > How should politicians be informed on these topics for which they are attempting to regulate? Provide them a bigger budget to hire their own staffers, who can do research? Produce more non-partisan, publicly-funded research, data, and surveys? Make them study themselves? How do judges get informed on topics they attempt to pass judgement on?
  - bko 2mo ago
    > Make them study themselves? How do judges get informed on topics they attempt to pass judgement on? They get expert witnesses. They certainly don't "do their own research"
    - triceratops 2mo ago
      That isn't entirely accurate. They at least need enough domain knowledge to tell if an expert witnesses is bullshitting them. Or to understand the jargon being used. Exhibit A: https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/19/16503076/oracle-vs-google-judge-william-alsup-interview-waymo-uber https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/19/16503076/oracle-vs-googl...
stult 2mo ago
That is a hopelessly naive description of lobbying, to the point that I assume you are being intentionally disingenuous. Lobbyists commonly funnel money to politicians via fundraiser bundling, donations to outside spenders like PACs, and other mechanisms that get around the weak remaining restrictions on direct campaign contributions that SCOTUS has not yet gutted. A lobbyist may not donate directly to a politician's campaign, but they get a group of their friends together for a fundraiser to effectively donate on their behalf (bundling). Or they donate to outside groups who then spend to support the politician's campaign, e.g. by funding advertising that benefits the candidate or hurts their opponent. Like when AIPAC sinks millions into ads against progressive candidates, that's tightly connected to their lobbying on behalf of Israel and you better believe that the politicians benefiting from that spending are well aware of how it is connected to their willingness to adopt the lobbyists' positions.

by Aunche 2mo ago

user- 2mo ago

Can you explain what you mean by >some humanities or social science majors this? Im sensing some meaning towards you calling out their degrees. Your comment implies you have some deep civic understanding so can you expland on what your POV is? Im not american and would like to konw.

throwaw12 2mo ago

> Lobbying expenditures are given to lobbyists not politicians. You're primarily paying for the salary of some humanities or social science majors and their travel expenses, which isn't that much money. I don't think these are the only expenses, why should politician listen to them if lobbyists are not promising them support in next elections in the form of marketing, payments for expenses and so on

groundzeros2015 2mo ago
They are interested in learning about topics from credible people that impact businesses and voters, If the only motivation you can ascribe is making money or relection, it is circular. Wealthy people spend money to become politicians.
- throwaw12 2mo ago
  > They are interested in learning about topics from credible people Honestly, you surprised me with this statement alone. interested in learning? do you think Trump wants to learn anything from AIPAC? or Pharma lobby or Military Industrial complex? What do politicans want to learn from Military Industrial complex or AIPAC lobby for example? What's there, that politicians don't know already?
  - mr_toad 2mo ago
    > What's there, that politicians don't know already? They need to be ‘reminded’ of the issues that ‘campaign contributions’ are contingent upon.
  - groundzeros2015 2mo ago
    They want to know what voters and business leaders care about. It’s in their interest for their reputation and succees.
  - undersuit 2mo ago
    What about Crypto lobbying. What do you think switched Trump's position on cryptocurrencies, did he learn you can scam people legally?
    - throwaw12 2mo ago
      You are right, my apologies. Indeed he learned something from them
    - groundzeros2015 2mo ago
      I suspect he learned it was popular with his base.
  - balarjin 2mo ago
    > > They are interested in learning about topics from credible people > Honestly, you surprised me with this statement alone. interested in learning? > do you think Trump wants to learn anything from AIPAC? > or Pharma lobby or Military Industrial complex? Trump is unusually sure of himself. But no man rules alone: There is a massive org under every president trying to run a government. I know for a fact that people two levels of management under Trump (i.e. Trump is their manager's manager) do take meetings with people who lobby on the issue of health care policy and (for and against) military procurement. I would be shocked if people who are for/against working with Isreal are never in a room with anyone who can set policy. Imagine that it is your job to come up with policy for a bug expensive government program: The VA hospital system, a military procurement program that buys airplanes, the part of the state department focused on MENA, etc. If someone asks to meet, claiming that they did academic/technical work which shows you can get a better result with a policy change, you will take that meeting. Examples: 1. An MD researcher shows you can cut drug costs by switching one medication for another. 2. An engineer has reason to believe current stealth coatings on fighter planes won't work against China's missiles in 5 years. 3. An economist thinks that an ally (Isreal, Korea, etc.) have demographics that will stop them from being able to field an army within 20 years. You should go into these meetings with skepticism, and there is a 90%-99% chance the person's idea is bad. But if an idea is good/correct/important, and you blew him off, your boss will be angry, and your career will be over. Most people in government want to solve problems (and get credit for doing so). Most problems governments face have hard tradeoffs that voters don't understand/care about. Voters want unlimited healthcare at no cost to themselves, 100% success thwarting terrorists with no spying on citizens, military supremacy without paying much for weapons, etc. People asked to solve these problems are DESPERATE for new ideas to allow voters to see that they are getting good outcomes. Telling them you have a way around a hard tradeoff is music to their ears.
andrewla 2mo ago
> why should politician listen to them if lobbyists are not promising them support in next elections in the form of marketing, payments for expenses and so on Mostly because those things are directly illegal. Lobbying organizations (and PACs and SuperPACs etc.) are very limited in what they can provide either as direct monetary contributions or in-kind gifts to a candidate. The restrictions here are basically the same as those on an individual, but usually with more strict reporting requirements and lower limits. The marketing aspect is the only thing that they can legally provide, and that's less a lobbying function than a PAC function, and they are not allowed to coordinate with the campaign or the candidate on this.
- qwytw 2mo ago
  Well a funding a PAC that supports a specific candidate/party who gets elected because of that effectively accomplishes the same thing. Of course the salary the company "buys" for them isn't exactly in the same magnitude as a direct bribe could potentially be (on the upper end at least).
- testing22321 2mo ago
  > Mostly because those things are directly illegal Ah yes, said politician will just host a $100,000 a head luncheon so nobody is “bribing” them. That would be dirty.
  - andrewla 2mo ago
    Yes, you're right, they could just do this, and then spend the rest of their term thrown out of Congress and rotting in prison. That is, they can hold such a lunch, but they can't pocket the money personally or even have the money contributed towards their campaign. Pocketing the money personally is just bribery, having it contribute to their campaign would violate the contribution limits (typically ~$10,000 per election max, though less than that in reality because the limit is split between primary and general). You're right to be slightly suspicious because these lunches do exist. But they don't go to the campaign or the candidate, they can go to PACs and SuperPACs or to the party. In tern, PACs and SuperPACs cannot give this money to the candidate or the campaign (same limits as above with higher reporting requirements) and cannot coordinate campaign messaging. This is not to say that corruption doesn't exist -- just that this simplistic form of it does not exist. You'll have to dig deeper than looking at lobbying activities to find the actual corruption, and it's usually masked in revolving door arrangements, speaking fees, and bulk sales of vanity books. But none of that can go through the typical lobbying system because it's too tightly regulated and tracked.
nitwit005 2mo ago
Even ignoring financial issues, people are generally willing to talk to major groups or industries. You tend not to get re-elected if you ignore everyone.
Aunche 2mo ago
It's not as if being elected is the end all and be all to being a politician. Politicians have a vague idea of how they want to shape society, but they can't be experts in completely unrelated subjects of healthcare, military, AI infrastructure etc. A good lobbyist will help a politician achieve these goals in the field of their expertise (or at least try to convince the politician that they're helping).
- throwaw12 2mo ago
  Why lobbyist can't just present their ideas publicly, like do a public free lessons to politicians and anyone who wants to attend, if they're so eager to teach politicians? Let them publicly say whatever they're preaching to politicians, and instead of 'funding' politicians directly, let them just teach everyone all at once. I would love to hear what AIPAC teaches politicians
  - anthuswilliams 2mo ago
    That's literally what 90% of lobbying is. Powerpoint presentations to Congressional staffers, econometrics research publications, policy panels and conferences, and so on. Not everything is campaign donations and super PACs.
    - throwaw12 2mo ago
      you can be good law obeying citizen 99% of the time and in 1% of the time bribe someone to do illegal things. what's your point with 90%? Why any lobbyists should have 1:1 time with a politician, what are they hiding?
      - twoodfin 2mo ago
        Why any lobbyists should have 1:1 time with a politician, what are they hiding? For one thing because it’s a right in the First Amendment, there next to freedom of religion and speech. If you have a grievance, you have a right to petition to have it redressed. Like other rights recognized in the Constitution, courts have interpreted it broadly, to include such things as a right for a private citizen to meet 1:1 with a willing public citizen.

smallmancontrov 2mo ago

The faintest whiff of a potential incentive wafted beneath the nose of an entrepreneur is enough to bring into motion the invisible hand. This is HN, that's what we do here. We assume that it is the same for politicians. Lobbyists are in the business of wafting. It is quite enough for them to bring credible rumors of corporate agenda and plans to spend in pursuit of them. Political entrepreneurs will move to capture that spend without a single back-alley transaction involving burlap sacks of cash with comically large $ signs printed on the side. It has the same effect, though.

bko 2mo ago

How should politicians be informed on these topics for which they are attempting to regulate? What's the alternative? I think its entirely reasonable that the industries affected by regulations spend money to combat incorrect information like water usage of data centers.

triceratops 2mo ago
> How should politicians be informed on these topics for which they are attempting to regulate? Provide them a bigger budget to hire their own staffers, who can do research? Produce more non-partisan, publicly-funded research, data, and surveys? Make them study themselves? How do judges get informed on topics they attempt to pass judgement on?
- bko 2mo ago
  > Make them study themselves? How do judges get informed on topics they attempt to pass judgement on? They get expert witnesses. They certainly don't "do their own research"
  - triceratops 2mo ago
    That isn't entirely accurate. They at least need enough domain knowledge to tell if an expert witnesses is bullshitting them. Or to understand the jargon being used. Exhibit A: https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/19/16503076/oracle-vs-google-judge-william-alsup-interview-waymo-uber https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/19/16503076/oracle-vs-googl...

stult 2mo ago

That is a hopelessly naive description of lobbying, to the point that I assume you are being intentionally disingenuous. Lobbyists commonly funnel money to politicians via fundraiser bundling, donations to outside spenders like PACs, and other mechanisms that get around the weak remaining restrictions on direct campaign contributions that SCOTUS has not yet gutted. A lobbyist may not donate directly to a politician's campaign, but they get a group of their friends together for a fundraiser to effectively donate on their behalf (bundling). Or they donate to outside groups who then spend to support the politician's campaign, e.g. by funding advertising that benefits the candidate or hurts their opponent. Like when AIPAC sinks millions into ads against progressive candidates, that's tightly connected to their lobbying on behalf of Israel and you better believe that the politicians benefiting from that spending are well aware of how it is connected to their willingness to adopt the lobbyists' positions.