Kill Hollywood? Let's fix politics instead: kill lobbying.
My thoughts went: "Should we-the-people retaliate against some influential business (sector) every time they successfully lobby for their own interests against the interest of the wider public?"
On which I concluded: "No we should fix politics instead, that's where the problem originates, that's where we can fix it once and for all."
And the most obvious fix I see is to criminalize lobbying (= power to the wealthy) as it is against democracy (= power to the people) in its very nature.
Just to name a few sectors that successfully lobbied for changes that (imho) harmed the wider public: banks, car industry, big-oil, big-pharma, big-food, military contractors.
Some simple math: if business (sector) X puts in 5M for a lobby on issue Y; the probability of success on their lobby campaign is 0.5; then the payoff of the campaign is at least 10M. Now where do those 10M come from? From everyone that is not X. In other words: the honest people --who do not try to influence politics outside of the public discussion-- lose from the wealthy mega-corps.
Lobbying is currently a fast growing industry itself:
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/01/washington-lobbying-grew-to-32.html
So please YC use your influence to fight the real bad, and "Kill the Lobby" with an RFC :)
102 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 165 ms ] threadhttp://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3500939
Lobbyists are the cancer of Democracy.
The problem isn't lobbying. It's corrupt elected officials who at best accept bribes/payment to fund an overly expensive electioneering machine. The problem is that lobbying happens with no public over site and now accountability.
The problem is more complex than just removing lobbying. Do you really want government making decisions without asking companies advice? The same companies that the government expects to implement strategies?
Say for example the USA predicts a 20% increase in crude oil use over the next 10 years. Where the refineries should go, where the oil is best sourced, how the petrol products are best distributed are all important questions that the oil industry is well placed to help answer. Not dictate of course but their opinion should matter.
EDIT: Before anyone accuses me of supporting the current system please give me the benefit of the doubt. I understand the system is inadequate as it stands but to remove lobbying just creates another problem of equal gravity.
It would be nice if we lived in a simple world but most of what politicians consider has no simple answer and there are diverse opinions that should guide them. Industry is just one of them.
For example, lets look at public health. It would be stupid to look at public health issues without asking pharmaceutical companies what they think. It would be equally stupid to sit at the table and think they are not trying to make money. It would be equally stupid to not ask scientist, public health officials and the public. It seems reasonable to me that the pharma companies would employ specialist PR people to deal with legislation. It does not seem reasonable to me that in order to stay elected individuals need to raise millions of dollars to fight for what they believe and are thus open to bribery. Fix that and lobbying no longer matters.
All businesses exist to make money. That is their sole goal. If you know that then there can be a reasonable outcome.
BTW: All western democracies are struggling with Lobbying. Only the US has got in to the state where it appears that lobbying has the upper hand (although many would argue the UK is close).
Now, quick - find me some scientific literature on a 1031 real estate exchange (for example). Then tell me what you think of them. How long did that take? How confident are you that you understand the issue?
Now do that for 1,000,000 more issues of equal or greater complexity.
Lobbyists are a necessary and good part of democracy.
They just shouldn't be able to give politicians money.
...getting 90% of your money stolen by those who have money.
I hope you have absolutely no damn idea how delusional you are. Lobbyism is the cancer of this society and of this planet, and it will destroy it if not stopped.
It's a simple equation: do you know what you get, if you add an "interest group", less than 100% systemic transparency, and give it some time? The best term for the result is "organized crime".
You really don't know anything about elected officials.
Look at their backgrounds - how many of them can understand any of the sources that you propose?
And then there's the assumption that they're just deciding between competing proposals. They're often creating proposals.
> If they rely just on information provided by the richest, and which represents the interest of these richest groups, the politician's decisions will be suboptimal.
Since they don't, that's irrelevant. (It's easy enough to see that they're influenced by groups that aren't "rich". See AARP, Greenpeace, etc.)
It is important to remember that an elected official's job is to get elected and re-elected because anyone who doesn't do that doesn't do anything else either.
Consider that idealistic politicians are also capable of more damage than corrupt self-interested ones.
The solution is not to seek for selfless idealists (who may be dangerous), but to remove power from politicians (to the extent possible) or at least to move decision making as close/locally as possible to the areas affected.
In a way, those interested in politics to make money would be less interested in it for the pure sake of having (then preserving) political power.
Here's one way to start: remove direct elections of senators. It makes lobbyists having to deal with 50 separate state legislatures rather than 100 individuals.
Lobbyists hear this and think "Oh boy! I get to deal with a set of elections that the average voter cares even less about than Congressional ones!"
Personally, I'd go the other way around, and switch to a Westminster system where you only have one vote for federal office, meaning that plans like Obama's small-donor system would be more feasible for the elections that really matter: legislative ones.
This is precisely why I tend to be very libertarian at a federal level and not so much at the state level. I consider having a powerful single point of failure a flaw in the system, one I think the founders were well aware of.
That statement shows exactly why "libertarianism" and all associated doctrines are built on a solid foundation of ignorance of human nature. There's nothing you could argue, really, when the other party is not even aware of the basic axioms.
http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/01/02/lawrence-lessig-on-money-...
Basically, publicly-funded elections could remove the corrupting influence of corporate money. Still not clear on how we get there, but I may pick up his latest book to learn more
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc
Convincing democratically-elected representatives to stop receiving money, money they use to buy votes, is a futile fight. Even if you do, many will just be corrupt and still accept money or other kinds of payment. IMHO, I'm starting to think that this system is really good - at least you have the means to find out who paid what and to whom.
Killing Hollywood, or at least doing something to make them think twice the next time, now that's doable.
The only solution I can imagine to mitigate this problem is to keep politicians in the government after their term has ended forever. I have no idea what they would do, maybe review legislation, be in committees, or just stay home. But, given the average age of a politician, I would imagine the increased payroll would not be to onerous.
Instead, PG said "Kill Hollywood" because the SOPA/PIPA debacle finally made it apparent to him that these industries are ripe for replacement. Imagine you notice that some middleman in a purchasing chain is starting to try very hard to include terms in their contracts that prohibit their customers from going directly to suppliers. This might make you realize that this middleman is scared of becoming unnecessary as customers go directly to suppliers. The middleman is in a position to know their industry really well... perhaps it's time for you to start up a business matching up the customers with suppliers directly (for a tiny cut, of course), thus killing off the middleman and making yourself a successful company in the process.
Well, that's what PG saw going on here. The SOPA/PIPA behavior made him realize that these media companies are focusing on keeping their position rather than on improving their services, which made it obvious that they are in danger of LOSING their position. What a perfect time to launch a company intended to profit from the large-scale changes that will be happening anyway.
I agree with the idea, but the devil is in the details. Congress should start with a cooling off period for staffers to work for lobbying firms, but I don't even know what it means to "criminalize lobbying".
- Move legislators back to their home district
- Term limits
- Permit them to only accept contributions from registered voters in their district
- repeal the 17th amendment
Limiting the influence of lobbyist's campaign contributions will empower ordinary citizens since elected officials will be more dependent on pleasing us to get elected rather than pleasing large donors so they can use large donor money to run media campaigns to get elected. Reducing the influence of large campaign donors will not give the civil service any more power than it has now.
The problem is the revolving door between industry and government... the promise of being able to sacrifice yourself politically translating directly into a cushy job in industry that's gained billions by the malfeasance... high profile examples are legion: Dick Cheney, Dick Gephardt, Pat Toomey, and (more timely) Chris Dodd.
I don't know the best solution but an airgap of related employment (say, 2 years) would probably slow this process down.
Furthermore, I'd point out that, depending on the form of a ban on lobbying, the recent SOPA protest might not have been able to happen. Google might have been prevented from blacking out their page as would Wikipedia, lest they run afoul of anti-lobbying laws. That's something worth thinking about.
It's also not just the business sector that has lobbyists. There are tons of other groups. The Sierra Club and NRA are two biggies that come to mind. As an individual, it's much more efficient for me to throw in with one of those groups to ensure my interests are protected than it is to do it myself. Both are exceptionally effective at getting what they want because they spend all day keeping an eye on elected (and unelected) government officials and their continued existence hinges on their success.
I'm not arguing that we have to like this current situation, but it's hard for me to think of a better scenario that doesn't infringe on the rights of people to assemble as a group and voice their opininon via financial support, advertising, etc... Just because some of the time we don't personally like the result of lots of lobbyists, doesn't mean this is the root of all evil. In the end, all the money in the world isn't going to compel ordinary citizens to vote for someone who doesn't have their interests in mind. Exhibit A would be John Corzine who had an incredible fortune at his disposal in his reelection bid as governor of NJ and still lost to Chris Christie in 2009.
I'm hoping Dodd was right and this was a watershed moment.
The argument is that compulsory voting would disincentivize these activities in favor of issues-based campaigning. I agree although I'm not sure I agree strongly enough to favor compulsory voting.
You want to contribute money to politics? Sure, feel free to pour some into this big barrel over here. The proceeds will be evenly divided between all candidates.
Corporations are allowed (after Citizens United) to spend as much money as they want to get a political message out, but hey, that's what the New York Times does, too.
However, I am allowed to gift you the whole car.
In particular read the section on Super PACs.
exactly. i'm not even clear on what behavior people are referring to when they say they want to ban lobbying. the act of lobbying is getting in front of politicians and convincing them to vote a certain way; is that what opponents of lobbying want to ban? when people across the internet banded together and called their representatives to fight soap, that was us lobbying!
what would the text of a law banning lobbying even look like? all the reasonable pieces of legislation i can imagine are just campaign finance laws, which i'm mostly on board with, but unfortunately, it looks like we need a constitutional amendment to pass them.
That's not a "right". That's a disease. Money in politics is the ultimate source of evil in western democracies. That is the beast that needs starving. That is the thing that needs systematic dismantling.
I'm asking this question genuinely. How do we do it and not make a hash of a bunch of other rights? I'd love to see a workable solution, the country would be better off if there could be one.
For starters, all political campaigns should be financed from a "single payer" system. You, Joe Schmoe, want to contribute money to politics? Sure, here's the big barrel, drop your cash in it, and we'll divide it up between all candidates.
The problem is the same - money in congress is distorting its policies, agendas and outcomes.
But Lessig's solution is to make the money = the people's voice. He recognizes that money will flow, and is in fact part of the process. But the idea is that you structure the system such that the candidates want to get monies from their constituents more than they want it from the big businesses.
He proposes one way to realign these interests is to publicly fund elections - in some way or another.
It probably wouldn't end lobbying entirely, but it would make the process a lot easier to monitor.
1. Purge congress, and rehab it with genuinely honest legislators (not career politicians) --- for each and every state (or at least the vast majority of them).
2. Purge at least 5 corrupt Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) members, and replace them with honest, real justices. But you can't just fire SC justices (unless we change the law, that is; see #1, above)... so this process could take time (i.e., not overnight). And two more things relating to SC justices: first, we need to remove or rehab the corrupt farm system of justices which feeds corrupt ones to SCOTUS candidacy in the first place (and probably the farm system for politicians for #1, above), and second: ...
3. We need to purge the executive office of corruption, including the political party running as both democrats and republicans --- and rehab our political system to create real choice, honest Presidents and cabinets, and select honest SCOTUS justices (i.e., second part of #2, above). Only then should we expect to make any real progress as a nation, or more to the point, only then should we expect to have any chance to derail our current national train wreck.
So, your observation and point are spot on, but we have our work cut out for us. We need Democracy to work, but ours has not been so resilient under pressures of wholesale internal corruption. Can we recover our democracy, or, as far as our national political will is concerned, are we already the walking dead (harsh, but perhaps true)?
Bottom line: we need to rehab our democracy, our nation, our culture, our political expectations, and our political will, and perhaps our political science education system (i.e., from missing in action to addressing organized corruption head-on in curriculum), and then have a go at rehabbing as a nation.
That is illegal, here's what wikipedia has to say
>Similarly, political donors are legally entitled to support candidates that hold positions with which the donors agree, or which will benefit the donors. Such conduct becomes bribery only when there is an identifiable exchange between the contribution and official acts, previous or subsequent, and the term quid pro quo denotes such an exchange.
It is technically illegal.
Make it a democracy with direct participation, removing professional politics out of the equation. If everyone is participating in any vote (and this should scale now much nicely thanks to technology) and magistrates / executive branches were randomly selected for short mandates and with oversee of the complete electorate, then the only person to corrupt would be the citizens themselves. And that is a lot more expensive.
To show how the system works, I'll give an example. A typical State Senate campaign runs a budget of about $100k. Under our Clean Elections system, participating candidates must raise $15k in small contributions of $100 or less per person. They then qualify for a grant from the state of $85k to round out their budget.
The grants are funded by state auction of unclaimed property and the like, not by taxpayer dollars (though even if we didn't do it this way, clean elections would still be a worthy thing for taxpayers to support).
This system is purely voluntary, but 75% of all candidates participated in the last state election. Our current governor was the first ever elected under this system.
Of course, this kind of reform doesn't happen out of the blue. A previous governor of our found himself thrown in jail for bribes and corruption. Afterward, both parties found themselves competing to "out-reform" the other, and this campaign finance system was the result.
Politically active folks I know tell me that lobbyists at the State Capitol in Hartford are less than half of their former selves. They still exist, but don't hold nearly as much power as they once did, when we called our state "Corrupticut."
Our system isn't perfect, but I think it's far better than anything that's done in any other state.
More states should move in our direction, but that will require overcoming their own lobbyists first. Not easy, but we are proof that it's possible.
Sadly, many outsiders don't like our system. The US Supreme Court also might destroy it (and a similar system in Arizona). It would be like Citizens United all over again.
But don't just take my word on all of this. Here's more info for the interested:
http://prospect.org/article/clean-election-state
Killing lobbying, sadly, is not an option. It will force the influence vectors under the table and cause all sorts of nastiness. People wanting to influence power isn't bad; it just needs to be effectively channeled.
What is needed is more transparency. Going both ways.
Going up, we need some way for politicians to effectively guage the support or opposition to a proposed piece of legislation. The ad hoc activism model we have going now is Dark Ages crap.
I can see a future where reps and senators pledge to use an online polling platform for bills that voters registered in their district sign up to voice up with, and where not pledging to use such a system will be anathema to one's campaign.
Going down, we need something that makes campaign financing more effective. By more effective I mean that instead of finding out about donation opportunities ad hoc I have a systematic way of ensuring I have considered every candidate and that every candidate has been evaluated on every issue pertinent to me. Not terrifically complicated software.
Second stage of top-to-bottom transparency revolves around informing voters, but I think that is fairly well covered for the amount of influence it has and the number of people who regularly and actively follow elections.
The constitution originally provides for 1 rep for every 30,000 people. If say we go back to that.
google "Presidential vs. parliamentarian system" and you'll see what I'm talking about
From my understanding, it isn't Congressmen that write the laws most of the time. AFAIK, many laws are written by industry and then handed to Congressmen read and modify, and such bills are handed with explanations and arguments to why they are needed. Such a process with always result in laws that move in the interest of lobbying powers due to the very nature of how negotiation works. In every negotiation, you have an "anchoring" effect, where the final outcome will be near the starting point. With that in mind, lobbyists define the starting point and therefore where the anchor is hooked on every debate.
The only solution I can come up with to this is a requirement that every single bill needs to be drafted in the open with a commit history of who made each and every commit to a bill. Only with this in place would we be able to see how much of the laws are written not by government but by industry. It would also give the people (specifically active concerned citizens) a voice early on in the process so that the position on which the "anchor gets hooked" is more balanced and representative.
Politicians, and especially lobbyists, today say things to the effect that it is difficult to draft laws and discuss things out in the open. What those that complain about this fail to understand is that that is the very essence of democracy. Democracy starts at the beginning of the discussion of public policy, not at the point at which policy comes to a vote.
Dodd, during his speech where he remarked that SOPA was a watershed moment, even said, "the white noise has made it impossible to have a conversation about this. We've gotta find a better way to have that conversation than we have in the last two weeks." This attitude is a clear sign of someone that doesn't understand what a democracy is. That white noise is democracy in action and the best thing we can do is make sure that democracy is happening at the inception of every idea that evolves into a law.
We basically need a super easy, useable git for laws accessible by everyone.
The other part is stopping money from polluting politics.
Hollywood, on the other hand, is vulnerable. They're a middleman in a world that doesn't like middlemen. If we destroy them once, they won't come back.