Lobbying: At which point should it be considered as bribery?

[Deleted]

With the recent news on Monsanto, I asked myself the question if lobbying isn't a form of bribery. Manipulating people by accommodating them in several ways.

Now I know (by experience) that lobbying is a necessary evil for interest groups to be heard. Sadly, the availability of people in power is abused by the large money pouches of multinationals for example.

What are your thoughts? Is there a distinct line, where lobbying should be considered bribery?

[Kathandira]

With the recent news on Monsanto, I asked myself the question if lobbying isn't a form of bribery. Manipulating people by accommodating them in several ways.

Now I know (by experience) that lobbying is a necessary evil for interest groups to be heard. Sadly, the availability of people in power is abused by the large money pouches of multinationals for example.

What are your thoughts? Is there a distinct line, where lobbying should be considered bribery?

I've always considered it bribery. I don't see any other way to look at it.

[zenkai]

With the recent news on Monsanto, I asked myself the question if lobbying isn't a form of bribery. Manipulating people by accommodating them in several ways.

Now I know (by experience) that lobbying is a necessary evil for interest groups to be heard. Sadly, the availability of people in power is abused by the large money pouches of multinationals for example.

What are your thoughts? Is there a distinct line, where lobbying should be considered bribery?

I consider corporate campaign contributions as legal bribery.

[callipygoustp]

If money changes hands in any way shape or form, as far as I am concerned, its bribery. Lobbying should exist only to inform not bribe.

[Beazy]

I wish there was a cap. Each human in the US can donate 500 dollars to a political campaign. So, we can keep citizens united, and business can be a "person" and that one person gets to donate 500 bucks only.

And the punishment for violating this new campaign funding law would be a Felony with a mandatory sentence of 25 years in federal prison.

[Wiyld]

If money changes hands in any way shape or form, as far as I am concerned, its bribery. Lobbying should exist only to inform not bribe.

Pretty much.

On a similar note...

I know this isn't an entirely original idea but I still love it. We should require all our politicians to wear their sponsors right on their clothing NASCAR style, the more the organization gave, the bigger the emblem. When they tour around in those big buses, the buses should be plastered in the sponsor names...no one needs to know what the persons face looks like, they need to know who they will support once in office.

I think this might originally have been a Robin Williams quote...

[Mittens]

I've always had this pet theory that those lucrative jobs politicians get (as councelors, paid speeches or some bs like that) in firms is a form of bribery.

[Independent voter]

Supreme Court says it's free speech.

If I'm famous and have a large following on YouTube like 5 million viewers my speech has more impact than yours, you having zero followers. It's not fair but it's the way it is. If you have plenty of money to donate and you donate millions, it's not fair either but it's your right to use your money how you see fit.

And look it up, big companies give roughly the same amount of money to both sides Republican and Democrat. Why, because they don't want to piss the other side off because some day the other side will come into power.

[Wiyld]

Supreme Court says it's free speech.

If I'm famous and have a large following on YouTube like 5 million viewers my speech has more impact than yours, you having zero followers. It's not fair but it's the way it is. If you have plenty of money to donate and you donate millions, it's not fair either but it's your right to use your money how you see fit.

And look it up, big companies give roughly the same amount of money to both sides Republican and Democrat. Why, because they don't want to piss the other side off because some day the other side will come into power.

It is freedom of choice. That is fine. I personally have a huge issue with citizens united....companies are not the same thing as individual people. So discussing the issue needs to be done on 2 fronts, individual contributions and corp. contributions.

As far as individual contributions go, it really is purely freedom of speech. If I go stand on a public corner waving a 'vote for pedro' sign that is me expressing my free opinion. If I pay 100 people to stand on public corners and wave the 'vote for pedro' sign, is that just an extension of my free speech? Or is that me buying votes of at least those 100 people, specifically if I am paying them? Obviously the later would be highly illegal.

When it comes to companies, we need to stop this bullshit suggesting that the whole company supports one candidate or another. I've worked for a couple of the worlds biggest companies and I can tell you they push their own agendas internally very very intensively. They are not only expressing limited perspective opinions publicly, but they do it internally as well. To suggest a company can use the aggregate resources of tens, or even hundreds or thousands of employees to support a candidate over another and claim that well represents the interests of everyone in that company is obvious crap.

[Tiwack]

If Monsanto supports democracy they'll submit themselves to due process and the questions of parliament for everyone to hear. However they're only interested in milling about behind closed doors. If they did their homework there would be no beef and they'd hopefully be able to straighten out a couple of misunderstandings and improve their image for everyone's benefit but go ahead and tell me how they're the victim in this turning the situation on it's head.

Headache is what they expect in return from their lobbying and sponsoring. Not often is donations made entirely in charitable spirit and as a statement that you support the cause and expect nothing in return other than the good work continues.
Politicians will always claim the money is for campaigning, so just give em that campaign money out of treasury and ensure everyone equal means to be heard at the same time with an independent media broadcaster acting as public servants, an hour or two a day, and let it be funded by sponsors and taxes to meet the backend if necessary and as a proof of concept. Easy to make local tv and radio stations with unbiased informative news instead of yellow news and sensationalized celebrity gossip. If people want to support a cause they can speak up and use their vote like everyone else and for those who insist on being charitable, forward that money straight to the treasury when it lands on the representatives desk. You should adjust taxes properly if the wealthy are already spending that much dough to be prioritized instead of this circus. If this isn't proof that they've got way more than they need I don't know what is. Politicians set their own salary so they should never need to pocket a bribe unless they're corrupt and spineless smh...

[Polarthief]

What's the point of even calling it lobbying when it literally is bribery?

- - - Updated - - -

If I'm famous and have a large following on YouTube like 5 million viewers my speech has more impact than yours, you having zero followers. It's not fair but it's the way it is. If you have plenty of money to donate and you donate millions, it's not fair either but it's your right to use your money how you see fit.

Bribing != Persuading. You can't compare the two.

One is paying to be heard, one is simply being heard.

[breadisfunny]

it is bribery.

[Very Tired]

Kind of a moot point to argue. The only people in a position to stop lobbying are the very ones being lobbied to.

It's the same deal as the Electoral College. We know it's a sucky system but it's not going to change.