Lobbying is how businesses talk to government. And I get that that sounds nasty—and sometimes it is nasty—-but it’s necessary.
Most of us work for businesses and when a rule comes out that legitimately threatens your business, you want to be able to tell the government in realtime.
Remember the rule change to the amortization of software expenses, which inadvertently would have killed thousands of software companies? Well, a big push from businesses got the rule amended and eventually removed, which is better for everyone. That’s lobbying.
Many businesses and local governments hire people who specialize in that work due to the sheer volume (America has a lot of layers of government).
I understand why the profession has such a bad reputation. When we think of a “lobbyist” we think of Big Tobacco or Big Tax Prep Software…companies who are trying to preserve their position by paying off the right people. But for every one of those, there are a hundred companies trying to make sure the law doesn’t screw then over and a hundred local communities trying to convince their state capitol to fund their schools and parks and bridges.
Ok, but does the government generally decide based on what’s in the best interest of the people, or the best interest of those who paid the most in the lobbying.
I think the answer to that should tell you how good or bad lobbying is.
> Remember the rule change to the amortization of software expenses, which inadvertently would have killed thousands of software companies?
While I’m sure this was lobbied heavily against by many companies, I don’t think that’s what did it. This was bad legislation done on purpose to poison the next administration, then undone as convenient.
> Lobbying is how businesses talk to government. And I get that that sounds nasty—and sometimes it is nasty—-but it’s necessary.
Sure. Its a just a shame people don't get a chance to talk too. I don't want a de-anonymised internet, for example, even if most businesses and the governance system think this is a 'good'.
I know this post is mainly about money in politics, but lobbying does go a lot farther than campaign contributions. Many lobbying groups are arranged around certain political groups, like environmentalism (Sierra Club), civil liberties (ACLU), or gun rights (NRA).
"Lobbying" is a generic term for influencing a politician, and it existed well before Citizens United. Hell, corporate influence in politics also existed long before Citizens United, too.
I've sat in a lawmaker's office with some friends before to ask them for help with something. We actually met with multiple state reps. That's lobbying that almost anybody can technically do. I don't think anyone is against that
As you pointed out, this is clearly about the type of lobbying where the politician ends up on the board of some industry group that they helped out or receives really generous PAC donations
While the courts have allowed the influence of money in politics to go much too far, I doubt that the idea of rich people and businesses using their wealth to influence politicians is all that alien to non-Americans.
Also, bribery isn't really "super illegal" in America. Cases like McDonnell vs. US make it so that as long as you don't go "Thank you for the bag of money, which I hereby accept in exchange for granting you, in my official capacity, that government contract you wanted, which you would not have gotten otherwise," you're pretty much in the clear.
It's not alien anywhere. There isn't a country where the rich don't heavily influence politics, there are no exceptions, and there never will be. They're almost always useful, and when they're not they're thrown out windows (Russia) or stripped of their assets (China). In the US when they go too far (or won't step in line), the government tends to eventually flex its power and remind them who is in charge. It's why people ranging from Bezos to Tim Cook are quasi-terrified of someone like Trump and his tantrum potential (despite how supposedly powerful those titans of industry are).
I am a non-American from Poland and have no trouble understanding lobbying along with the distinction between lobbying and outright bribery or more systemic corruption.
Also, a lot of lobbying happens without money changing hands. Politicians need professional bodies and local communites for a variety of reasons. From staging campaign stops through having experts to maintain a semblance of merit all the way to filling goverment positions and actually exercising power once they win elections. Thus these various groups gain influence.
I think it's almost always the latter with a mere sprinkling of the former.
Not because there aren't many honest people driven by what's best for their craft or profession, there are, but these are not the kinds of people who find being a political party's talking head on a morning show, or even reviewing their political program and schmoozing with the apparatchiks, gratifying.
This is very lazy slopulism, but I'll take a stab at defending lobbying. Lobbying is a way for relevant stakeholders to make their issues known. Are there problems with lobbying? Absolutely, but it's not bribery.
I think what we're seeing here is the consequence of the word lobbying being used when we lack a better alternative. It's overloaded currently, because we lack the necessary language to describe what's really going on in the US post-Citizen United.
One one hand, lobbying means interfacing with government leaders directly; engaging in face to face communication, and building relationships so that your interests are heard. No one thinks that's bad.
However, the US has taken many steps since well before Citizens United to build a kind of legal fiction which has made bribes legal, which is wrapped in the same language as what I'll call "ethical lobbying." As the OP points out, as long as on the record there are enough levels of separation between the politician and the person or organization giving the money, it's completely fine. The fact that the CEO and the politician are having lunch together is just a coincidence as they are definitely old buddies who have a shared mutual friend.
This problem has existed for a while in the US, but the Citizens United decision and the expense of running re-election campaigns has made it far, far worse.
Yes, and plenty do. Lobbying is a different thing to funding campaigns. It's just that many politicians are willing to listen more to lobbyists who also fund their campaign.
Yes but the bribery is not an integral part of lobbying. Plenty of lobbying orgs never donate (not least because they can't afford it). Also lobbying still exists even in countries with strict campaign finance laws.
FYI, top PACs of the 2024 election (source: Wikipedia)
National Association of Realtors – $3,751,000
Blue Cross/Blue Shield [health insurance] – $2,705,050
American Crystal Sugar [agriculture] – $2,667,500
National Beer Wholesalers Association – $2,585,000
American Israel Public Affairs Committee – $2,572,500
Operating Engineers Union – $2,528,306
America's Credit Unions – $2,489,160
American Bankers Association – $2,249,580
Sheet Metal, Air, Rail & Transportation Union – $2,226,900
Trump 47 Committee – $2,220,530
Given this list, it’s really hard to be surprised about how America operates internally, and which businesses are sacrosanct. You could produce this list to the questions “why is real estate so expensive? Why don’t we have free healthcare? Why do we care so much about Israel? etc.”
In a representative democracy you're supposed to represent the people equally. That's why everyone gets one vote, and the law puts a lot of effort to make sure votes cannot be bought.
If you get around that principle by paying, however indirectly, it's a degree of bribery.
It's uniquely protected in the US, due to the constitution protecting freedom of speech. The supreme court has ruled that the government cannot stop anyone from sharing their views of candidates or campaigning on their behalf.
I agree with the absurdity of it all, but also we're already so far beyond garden variety Citizens United-enabled SuperPAC bribery at this point and things just keep getting increasingly corrupt.
The President of the United States routinely pardons people of federal criminal charges in exchange for large sums of money. He does it right out in the open.
There are credible reasons to believe the administration will attempt to nullify the results of the upcoming midterm elections if they go as badly for the Republicans as it seems they will, and who knows what the hell will happen in 2028.
This is a very poorly researched article, as if lobbying was an American thing when it is something that happens all over the world especially in Europe.
That's 40 lobbyists for every EU parliament member.
Finally, lobbying is not a bad thing per se. Take the Chat Control issue that the EU has been pushing down the throat of its citizens for the last 5 years, the worst aspects of it have been watered down (slightly) because of citizens lobbying their MPs to defend their privacy rights.
Everyone can become a lobby and make their voices heard and that is how it's supposed to work.
(IANALobbyist but I do work for a lobbying firm)
Lobbying is how businesses talk to government. And I get that that sounds nasty—and sometimes it is nasty—-but it’s necessary.
Most of us work for businesses and when a rule comes out that legitimately threatens your business, you want to be able to tell the government in realtime.
Remember the rule change to the amortization of software expenses, which inadvertently would have killed thousands of software companies? Well, a big push from businesses got the rule amended and eventually removed, which is better for everyone. That’s lobbying.
Many businesses and local governments hire people who specialize in that work due to the sheer volume (America has a lot of layers of government).
I understand why the profession has such a bad reputation. When we think of a “lobbyist” we think of Big Tobacco or Big Tax Prep Software…companies who are trying to preserve their position by paying off the right people. But for every one of those, there are a hundred companies trying to make sure the law doesn’t screw then over and a hundred local communities trying to convince their state capitol to fund their schools and parks and bridges.
Ok, but does the government generally decide based on what’s in the best interest of the people, or the best interest of those who paid the most in the lobbying.
I think the answer to that should tell you how good or bad lobbying is.
> Remember the rule change to the amortization of software expenses, which inadvertently would have killed thousands of software companies?
While I’m sure this was lobbied heavily against by many companies, I don’t think that’s what did it. This was bad legislation done on purpose to poison the next administration, then undone as convenient.
> threatens your business, you want to be able to tell the government in realtime.
How nice! I wish normal people also had a “realtime” direct line to the government.
> Well, a big push from businesses got the rule amended and eventually removed, which is better for everyone. That’s lobbying.
Why would such efforts even be necessary if government would actually listen to its constituents?
> When we think of a “lobbyist” we think of Big Tobacco or Big Tax Prep Software
When we think of a “lobbyist” we think of more money = more access = more chances you’re being taken seriously. That’s the problem.
p.s. this is not directly to you personally, it’s about the system. I mean no offense.
Forgive my ignorance, but if you're not paying off the right people, how are you lobbying for change?
What's the mechanism, if not handing people cash and benefits if they support your cause?
Explaining why the course of action the lobbyist is lobbying for gets the decision maker more of what he already wants.
> Lobbying is how businesses talk to government. And I get that that sounds nasty—and sometimes it is nasty—-but it’s necessary.
Sure. Its a just a shame people don't get a chance to talk too. I don't want a de-anonymised internet, for example, even if most businesses and the governance system think this is a 'good'.
I know this post is mainly about money in politics, but lobbying does go a lot farther than campaign contributions. Many lobbying groups are arranged around certain political groups, like environmentalism (Sierra Club), civil liberties (ACLU), or gun rights (NRA).
"Lobbying" is a generic term for influencing a politician, and it existed well before Citizens United. Hell, corporate influence in politics also existed long before Citizens United, too.
I've sat in a lawmaker's office with some friends before to ask them for help with something. We actually met with multiple state reps. That's lobbying that almost anybody can technically do. I don't think anyone is against that
As you pointed out, this is clearly about the type of lobbying where the politician ends up on the board of some industry group that they helped out or receives really generous PAC donations
While the courts have allowed the influence of money in politics to go much too far, I doubt that the idea of rich people and businesses using their wealth to influence politicians is all that alien to non-Americans.
Also, bribery isn't really "super illegal" in America. Cases like McDonnell vs. US make it so that as long as you don't go "Thank you for the bag of money, which I hereby accept in exchange for granting you, in my official capacity, that government contract you wanted, which you would not have gotten otherwise," you're pretty much in the clear.
It's not alien anywhere. There isn't a country where the rich don't heavily influence politics, there are no exceptions, and there never will be. They're almost always useful, and when they're not they're thrown out windows (Russia) or stripped of their assets (China). In the US when they go too far (or won't step in line), the government tends to eventually flex its power and remind them who is in charge. It's why people ranging from Bezos to Tim Cook are quasi-terrified of someone like Trump and his tantrum potential (despite how supposedly powerful those titans of industry are).
I am a non-American from Poland and have no trouble understanding lobbying along with the distinction between lobbying and outright bribery or more systemic corruption.
Also, a lot of lobbying happens without money changing hands. Politicians need professional bodies and local communites for a variety of reasons. From staging campaign stops through having experts to maintain a semblance of merit all the way to filling goverment positions and actually exercising power once they win elections. Thus these various groups gain influence.
> through having experts to maintain a semblance of merit
Also, you have gradient from "actual honest expert advise" to "pushing own interest while claiming to be an expert".
I think it's almost always the latter with a mere sprinkling of the former.
Not because there aren't many honest people driven by what's best for their craft or profession, there are, but these are not the kinds of people who find being a political party's talking head on a morning show, or even reviewing their political program and schmoozing with the apparatchiks, gratifying.
This is very lazy slopulism, but I'll take a stab at defending lobbying. Lobbying is a way for relevant stakeholders to make their issues known. Are there problems with lobbying? Absolutely, but it's not bribery.
I think what we're seeing here is the consequence of the word lobbying being used when we lack a better alternative. It's overloaded currently, because we lack the necessary language to describe what's really going on in the US post-Citizen United.
One one hand, lobbying means interfacing with government leaders directly; engaging in face to face communication, and building relationships so that your interests are heard. No one thinks that's bad.
However, the US has taken many steps since well before Citizens United to build a kind of legal fiction which has made bribes legal, which is wrapped in the same language as what I'll call "ethical lobbying." As the OP points out, as long as on the record there are enough levels of separation between the politician and the person or organization giving the money, it's completely fine. The fact that the CEO and the politician are having lunch together is just a coincidence as they are definitely old buddies who have a shared mutual friend.
This problem has existed for a while in the US, but the Citizens United decision and the expense of running re-election campaigns has made it far, far worse.
Can't they make their issues known without paying the politician's campaign a bag of cash?
Yes, and plenty do. Lobbying is a different thing to funding campaigns. It's just that many politicians are willing to listen more to lobbyists who also fund their campaign.
> It's just that many politicians are willing to listen more to lobbyists who also fund their campaign.
“It’s just that a bag of cash is persuasive”. Well, no shit. It’s called bribery.
Yes but the bribery is not an integral part of lobbying. Plenty of lobbying orgs never donate (not least because they can't afford it). Also lobbying still exists even in countries with strict campaign finance laws.
Right? Europe has lobbying without payments, as that's called what it is there: bribery.
There are plenty of generous donations for political parties and lucrative board positions for politicians in Europe
See: Germany + Russia in the Merkel era and questions over why the EU remained so very open to Russian energy for so long.
What? Lobbyists in Brussels have spent over 300 million euros just in 2024[0].
[0]https://www.protothema.gr/files/2025-03-06/ekthesi-lobbying....
Lobbying, in theory, isn’t bribery.
Lobbying, in practice, has turned into a form of bribery.
if by "relevant" you mean "rich", sure
now consider if that is the entire set of stakeholders
FYI, top PACs of the 2024 election (source: Wikipedia)
National Association of Realtors – $3,751,000
Blue Cross/Blue Shield [health insurance] – $2,705,050
American Crystal Sugar [agriculture] – $2,667,500
National Beer Wholesalers Association – $2,585,000
American Israel Public Affairs Committee – $2,572,500
Operating Engineers Union – $2,528,306
America's Credit Unions – $2,489,160
American Bankers Association – $2,249,580
Sheet Metal, Air, Rail & Transportation Union – $2,226,900
Trump 47 Committee – $2,220,530
Given this list, it’s really hard to be surprised about how America operates internally, and which businesses are sacrosanct. You could produce this list to the questions “why is real estate so expensive? Why don’t we have free healthcare? Why do we care so much about Israel? etc.”
I'm assuming Wikipedia's source is OpenSecrets which is an incredible resource
https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs...
You can see any individual politicians and who they're funded by or see which industry funds which candidates
But now that Dark Money[0] is legal, there's limited value in these numbers
[0] https://www.brennancenter.org/topics/money-politics/influenc...
> Lobbying is a way for relevant stakeholders to make their issues known.
If only America was some kind of "representative" democracy where it was already the job of politicians to find this out.
>slopulism
TIL
>1, Populism characterized by low-quality (often gen AI) memes and conspiracy theories.
>2, Populism characterized by vague, disingenuous, or excessively idealistic claims.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/slopulism
I disagree with categorization though. Or now lower quality writing will be also branded as AI generated?
In a representative democracy you're supposed to represent the people equally. That's why everyone gets one vote, and the law puts a lot of effort to make sure votes cannot be bought.
If you get around that principle by paying, however indirectly, it's a degree of bribery.
Lobbying is hardly uniquely (US) american, right? At least in Europe, we have our fair share and I'm sure it exists in Africa and Asia as well.
Lots of big lobbying companies corrupting Australia, too.
Less "sophisticated" countries just tend cut out the lobbyist middleman and call it what it is - bribery.
It's uniquely protected in the US, due to the constitution protecting freedom of speech. The supreme court has ruled that the government cannot stop anyone from sharing their views of candidates or campaigning on their behalf.
Explicitly allowing payments with lobbying is more rare.
I am amazed at how many people in here are ready to defend lobbying.
Are you prepared to go as far as to say that lobbying is necessary for good government?
I think in Canada lobbying is much more limited, so it's probably not due to democracy that we get lobbying.
Well you see, money = speech. And you propose to limit that??? Preposterous!
Vote with your wallet, they say. And how thy do!
> Bribery is super illegal in America.
Not anymore! Just change the order!
Supreme Court Rules Bribes are Fine if You’re Paid Later: https://afj.org/article/supreme-court-rules-bribes-are-fine-...
This framing is weird; this kind of lobbying through campaign/party donations happens almost anywhere that elections are a thing.
Often with strict spending limits. Which get violated, but at least it's not A-OK legally.
Lobbying is definitely not an exclusive American thing.
Lobbying is also different to bribery even if some bribery is done under the label of lobbying.
Why is no one lobbying to get rid of lobbying?
Are the bribes better in other countries because they don't have a funny euphemism and carried out loosely in public?
I agree with the absurdity of it all, but also we're already so far beyond garden variety Citizens United-enabled SuperPAC bribery at this point and things just keep getting increasingly corrupt.
The President of the United States routinely pardons people of federal criminal charges in exchange for large sums of money. He does it right out in the open.
There are credible reasons to believe the administration will attempt to nullify the results of the upcoming midterm elections if they go as badly for the Republicans as it seems they will, and who knows what the hell will happen in 2028.
> No no no that can’t be a bribe you see, that happens after the laws were passed, a bribe would have to be before.
That's how you can tell that lobbying is different from prostitution. In the latter, money exchange is illegal both before and after the act.
How does lobbying work in Asia ?
In what democracy is the government and the opposition not completely owned by lobbyist money these days?
Everywhere where you have democracy?
Yes, I strictly interpreted "completely".
Does any American actually think this way about lobbying?
This is a very poorly researched article, as if lobbying was an American thing when it is something that happens all over the world especially in Europe.
Did you know there are 30000++ lobbyists in Brussels? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/lobbyists-euro...
That's 40 lobbyists for every EU parliament member.
Finally, lobbying is not a bad thing per se. Take the Chat Control issue that the EU has been pushing down the throat of its citizens for the last 5 years, the worst aspects of it have been watered down (slightly) because of citizens lobbying their MPs to defend their privacy rights.
Everyone can become a lobby and make their voices heard and that is how it's supposed to work.
Look the guy over is doing it too!
Not guilty your honor.
Some argument dude.
I am of the perspective that it's usually politician's extorting business people.
Kind of like, "If you don't bribe us, we shall pass laws that hurt you."
Business people just want to run their businesses.
Politicians however depend on strife. Which explains why, no matter the politician, nothing ever changes.
If you are to classify business people & politicians in an ecological sense.
- Business people would be symbiotes
- Politicians are parasites