Lobbying--Good? or Bad?

well, its in the constitution for one.

0 Replies

How embarrassing. That's something I should know, but assuming that at one point years and years ago I did know it, I've forgotten.

Where is it? Do you know offhand?

0 Replies

Quote:

well, its in the constitution for one.

I am not familiar with the part of the Constitution that allows this, but I will take Farmerman's word for it. I would say that lobbying gives the opportunity for groups to get together to support certain constituencies that would not receive the attention that would be given individuals championing certain causes. What comes to mind is AARP., which promotes the causes of interest to seniors.

In some respects, lobbying could be compared with unions. A large, organized group of people can have much more clout than a bunch of individuals.

The problem with lobbying, is that certain groups have amassed TOO much clout, and are in a position, because of financial reasons, to unduly sway legislators.

0 Replies

Is there a difference between lobbying and political action committees? (I'm just beginning to try to think this through and haven't had time yet to google enough stuff to find out.) Phoenix, I thought that what you describe is PAC activity, and I thought that lobbying is business or industry-related activity. For example, I think of the AARP as a PAC, but the pharmaceutical industry as lobbying. But maybe there's not really a distinction.

When I think in terms of the AARP, or unions, or similar groups exerting pressure, I tend to think of them as "good" (for the most part, at least). When I think in terms of the pharmaceutical industry or the tobacco industry exerting pressure, I tend to think of those groups as "bad."

0 Replies

Quote:

When I think in terms of the AARP, or unions, or similar groups exerting pressure, I tend to think of them as "good" (for the most part, at least). When I think in terms of the pharmaceutical industry or the tobacco industry exerting pressure, I tend to think of those groups as "bad."

JanW - I think that it is all a matter of your perspective. If you agree with those groups, you will perceive their actions as "good". If you don't, you will think that what they do is "bad".

0 Replies

You may very well be right, Phoenix. That's the kind of thing I'm trying to sort out.

Incidentally, I love your signature. A high school teacher introduced me to Ayn Rand so very many years ago that it's amazing I can remember back that far. I've re-read most of her novels so many times that I ought to have them memorized by now.

(In my old age, I've come to believe that there are some serious holes in Objectivism, but that's another topic for another thread.)

0 Replies

Quote:

(In my old age, I've come to believe that there are some serious holes in Objectivism, but that's another topic for another thread.)

JanW -Of course there are, just as there are holes in other philosophical systems. But I am not a believer in throwing out the baby with the bathwater!

0 Replies

Phoenix-im certain that the part of the Constitution that addresses lobbying is thhe 1stt Amendment which states that the government wont make any laws limiting the citizens rights to assemble and to "petition" the govt to air grievances. (This is , of course, my imperfect recollection of the language which, as we know, is more formal

0 Replies

JanW wrote:

Is there a difference between lobbying and political action committees? (I'm just beginning to try to think this through and haven't had time yet to google enough stuff to find out.) Phoenix, I thought that what you describe is PAC activity, and I thought that lobbying is business or industry-related activity. For example, I think of the AARP as a PAC, but the pharmaceutical industry as lobbying. But maybe there's not really a distinction.

When I think in terms of the AARP, or unions, or similar groups exerting pressure, I tend to think of them as "good" (for the most part, at least). When I think in terms of the pharmaceutical industry or the tobacco industry exerting pressure, I tend to think of those groups as "bad."

The term "PAC" has more to do with election law and tax status than anything else. A non-proft group can't involve itself in partisan political activity or they lose their non-profit status. So they setup a PAC as a seperate legal entity. That way the main group maintains it's non-profit status and the only funds that are taxable are those from within the PAC.

The pharmacutical and tobacco industries have industry groups that are also PACs to represent them. The actual drug makers and tobacco growers don't lobby by themselves. They fund the PAC and the PAC does the lobbying for them.

Since the entire purpose of having a PAC is to lobby it'd be hard to say that the two are seperate things. Find a lobbyist and odds are that they represent a PAC.

0 Replies

Thanks, fishin'. I am constantly amazed at the number of things I've taken somehow for granted and never investigated the details or thought carefully about. So: Generally speaking, are PACs a good thing or a bad thing? In the first place, I wasn't thinking specifically of partisan political activity as much as influencing legislation. Seems to me that when when a profit-making industry spends big bucks to influence legislation or to influence a government agency (e.g., the pharmas and the FDA), that's a formula for injustice. Yet this seems different somehow when a non-profit organization (Sierra Club?) has a PAC to influence environmental legislation that it is somehow different. What do the rest of you think?

0 Replies

Quote:

Seems to me that when when a profit-making industry spends big bucks to influence legislation or to influence a government agency (e.g., the pharmas and the FDA), that's a formula for injustice. Yet this seems different somehow when a non-profit organization (Sierra Club?) has a PAC to influence environmental legislation that it is somehow different. What do the rest of you think?

Before we get all warm and fuzzy about non-profits, and demonize industry, you need to remember just one thing. They each have an agenda, which could be for good, of for ill, according to the specifics. It is not reasonable, IMO, to paint with too broad a brush.

I am interested into why you think that a profit making industry attempting to influence legislation is necessarily unjust? We know that there are some abuses, but it is industry that keeps the economy going strong.

0 Replies

I'm guessing because the agenda of an industry is always more money to its owners and administration. Big industry seek advantages over small industry, as well as favoritism over other industries.

0 Replies

well, I worked for a PAC years ago when MTBE was going to be put in gas. I chaired a research group that was funded by the oil industtry that fought the formulation because we said that this crap would pollute water. 20 years later, guess what--the EPA now acts like they were the ones that discovered that MTBE was dangerous and a damn bad water pollutant.
Yes , not all lobbying efforts or PAC activities are evil when industry poses them.

0 Replies

JanW wrote:

Generally speaking, are PACs a good thing or a bad thing? In the first place, I wasn't thinking specifically of partisan political activity as much as influencing legislation.

"partisan politics" includes weighing in one one side or the other concerning legislation too. It's not just about elections. Wink

I don't see PACs as being either good or bad in themselves. They serve a purpose and we all have the right to organized to make our voices heard.

My concerns with PACs are more along the line of imbalance (i.e. a PAC on one side of an issue with no clear opposing group) and that PACs, like much of the rest of our politics, are becoming the voices of extremism. The more power they assume the more extreme they can become.

Whether the PAC represents a the Sierra Club or the Tobacco industry doesn't make much difference for me. The Sierra Club, like any other PAC, has the interests of it's members as it's sole priority. You might agree with their interests but that doesn't mean that they always have the best interests of the country as a whole in mind when they appear before Congress.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Quote:
I am interested into why you think that a profit making industry attempting to influence legislation is necessarily unjust? We know that there are some abuses, but it is industry that keeps the economy going strong.[/color][/b]

Admittedly, I was indeed painting with too broad a brush. I didn't mean to generalize to the extent I did, and I didn't mean to imply "necessarily." And I agree that industry keeps the economy going strong.

But there seems to me to be something prima facie wrong when huge amounts of money are spent to convince legislators that x ought be done (or not done, or whatever). Why can't the reasons for/against x stand pretty much on their own? I have no objections to an industry's paying the salaries of people who serve as information-disseminators. Given the amount of money that is in fact spent, though, leads me to believe that the votes are often swayed more by money than by considerations about what's best.

I happen to think that a lot of this involves a flagrant swaying of legislators so that the bills passed benefit the company/industry whether that is best for the consumer (or for the country) or not. But a lot of it can be quite subtle. Studies have shown, for example, that doctors honestly believe themselves NOT to be influenced by drug companies--yet there is a correlation between the perks the pharmas give docs and the drugs the docs prescribe. (Sorry: I doubt that I'll be able to dig up the reference for that, but it was a reputable study.)

The market ought decide what the best product is, I think, and the government's granting benefits to this company or that, or this industry or that, ought not play a role. Nor should an industry spend large amounts of money to try to influence the customer to buy a product for reasons (conscious or unconscious) other than the merits of the product itself.

In many cases, perhaps no real harm is done, so long as the product is in fact a good one. But harm is done, I think, if the resources of larger companies enable them to influence customers--and, far worse, influence legislation--to back the company or industry for no better reason than that it is rich and powerful. This is not fair competition.

If you guys will pardon a moment of whimsy, I will even add that if companies need something in addition to the product itself to attract customers, perhaps they ought compete to see which company can donate the most to charity!

0 Replies

[quote="fishin'][/quote]
Whether the PAC represents a the Sierra Club or the Tobacco industry doesn't make much difference for me. The Sierra Club, like any other PAC, has the interests of it's members as it's sole priority. You might agree with their interests but that doesn't mean that they always have the best interests of the country as a whole in mind when they appear before Congress.[/quote]

For me, it does matter whether a PAC represents a non-profit organization or one that is in business to make money for its industry. I agree that being non-profit doesn't mean that a PAC is working for the best interests of the country in mind; any PAC is promoting the interests of its members, true. But at least non-profits (despite corruption, bad leadership, skimming off the donations, whatever) generally have some kind of humanitarian goal in mind. Corporations/industries, on the other hand, are seeking some kind of unjust competitive edge over some other group--or something along those lines.

It is possible that any non-profit PAC is corrupt, and it's possible that what a given corporation/industry seeks may in fact be good for the country. I am, again, speaking generally (and admitting that there are exceptions).

[Sorry about the quote--again! Can't seem to get the hang of it, even looking carefully at the codes. The problem comes when I try to edit out part of the message I'm quoting, and at that point it all falls apart!]

0 Replies

JanW wrote:

Studies have shown, for example, that doctors honestly believe themselves NOT to be influenced by drug companies--yet there is a correlation between the perks the pharmas give docs and the drugs the docs prescribe.

Oh, I have no doubt that medical people are influenced by pharmaceutical detail sales people. And that is why individuals need to be informed consumers.

It is not sufficient nowadays to simply accept what your doctor says, and swallow it wholesale. Before the internet, there WAS information to be had, but it was a hassle to access it. I double check everything that my doctor prescribes, especially when it comes to medications. And I don't mean going to the patient sites, which are often created by the pharmaceutical industry. I opt for the info that is geared toward medical professionals.

But I am getting ahead of myself. Before even seeing a doctor, I check his credentials, his education, experience. I check to see if he has lost any malpractice suits. In one case, (sadly, after the fact,) I ordered a complete malpractice report on a doctor with whom I thought there was a problem.

A few month's ago, a doctor (with whom I have great confidence) gave a new medication to my husband. On the next follow up visit, he informed my husband that he should stop taking it, as a subsequent study had uncovered some problems with it. Now that doc is worth his weight in gold!

The bottom line, is that we cannot let physicians infantilize us. We cannot just accept everything that they say. We need to become informed. Our lives may depend on it!

0 Replies

JanW wrote:

Corporations/industries, on the other hand, are seeking some kind of unjust competitive edge over some other group--or something along those lines.

IMO, this is an assuption you come to the table with that may not be true at all. Brystol-Meyers Squibb, for example, doesn't have a PAC. They belong to an industry trade group (The Pharmacutical Manufacturers Assoc.) and that trade group has a PAC. If Bristol-Meyers Squibb wants a law changed they have to convice the entire body of Pharma. Manufacturers that the law needs to be changed before the PAC will raise it to the Congress. Are the other companies in that trade group going to allow Bristol-Meyers to get a competitive advantage over them by using their own trade group against them? Not likely.

Most of the laws the PAC will speak on changes laws that affect the group as a whole such as allowing a new class of drugs. When they do that the entire industry has an equeal chance to making a profit (or failing) by filling that void if the law is changed. They also have an equeal chance to coming up with a drug that will help people that are suffering from specific illnesses. That's not a bad thing.

Quote:

It is possible that any non-profit PAC is corrupt, and it's possible that what a given corporation/industry seeks may in fact be good for the country. I am, again, speaking generally (and admitting that there are exceptions).

Just to continue using the Sierra Club as an example, they are a club that represents their membership. How many people are members? 200,000? When they lobby they are seeking just as much of an "unjust" advantage by using the power of their 200,000 members to get laws/rules that affect the entire 290,000,000 people in this country. They only actually represent a tiny minority of that population yet their proposals affect every single one of us. Rules made by tiny minorioties are generally bad.

Many of these groups, Sierra Club included, have internal issues where board members are misrepresenting themselves and trying to use the power of one group to acheive the aims of another. See this link for a good example.

I think this is more the rule with ALL PACs than the exception.

0 Replies

[quote="Phoenix32890]The bottom line, is that we cannot let physicians infantilize us. We cannot just accept everything that they say. We need to become informed. Our lives may depend on it![/color][/b][/quote]

I'm with you 100% on this one. I'm old enough to have several things chronically wrong, and I generally stay one step ahead of my doc via web research. When I go in, he and I can talk in pretty much the same terms.

I also change docs after 3 strikes. It's hard to say exactly what constitutes a strike, but it usually involves some form of paternalism on the part of the doc.

My current doc is just terrific in terms of treating me with respect. It's a real partnership. In addition, he comes and talks to my health care ethics classes, which contributes to mutual respect.

0 Replies

Lobbying--Good? or Bad?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know