Lobbying--Good? or Bad?

In response to fishin' on PACs:

I agree with all that you've said. This is one reason I started the thread: It is possible that generally speaking PACS do more harm than good. That's the issue I am exploring. And we could still assemble and petition the government without PACs.

In my judgments, I am assuming some general consensus that, for example, being able to exert pressure on the FDA that results in an unsafe drug being left on the market long after there is evidence that it is unsafe is wrong. Another example--importing drugs from Canada. There are arguments for and against. But if the pharmas are spending big bucks to influence the government to forbid this without serious consideration of the actual justice and safety issues, then that's wrong. If we're not agreed on that, then the disagreement is foundational.

I agree that any given PAC is promoting a relatively narrow interest, and what it is trying to achieve may be good or may be bad for whatever groups are involved (or good for one group and bad for another). My point is that when it is the money talking rather than the merits of a particular case, then whether x is a good idea or bad idea or whatever isn't the basis for legislation (or whatever is at stake).

And I think that it is likely (although certainly not a foregone conclusion) that where there are big bucks at stake in terms of profits rather than humanitarian goals, then the odds are that the best interests of competitors or consumers won't be the result.

I see PACs as promoting one side/cause rather than another, and since there is such a variety of possibilities, it's hard to speak concretely. If an entire industry is involved (as in your example of pharmas), then what is sough is not advantage over one's competitors, but perhaps advantage when it comes to regulatory issues.

Well, this is why I answered your thread initially the way I did.

As you say here, there are questions that remain on the issue of importing drugs from Canada (This isn't an area I've looked into a whole lot but if you can extrapolate it into the larger discussion I think it makes some sense) then a PAC being in there and being a strong advocate for their side isn't a bad thing - regardless of what their side is.

If we (the total "we" - not just you and I! ) are going to make a major decision then I want both sides of the coin to air out the issues entirely and let the chips fall where they may in forming a concensus. I see the need for justice of a full and open hearing being more important than the justice of a quick solution that may be ill-conceived.

If there is no opposition to the Pharma PACs then the issue is only being presented by one side and there is no real discussion and that's bad IMO. This is why I see PACs like AARP, the NRA, the Sierra Club, etc.. as being a lot more dangerous than many industry groups. There aren't many equeal single issue groups on the opposite sides of these that can balance out the discussion.

Is it possible PACs do more harm than good? Sure, it's possible. I don't think the majority of them do though. On an overall scale I think they are a benefit to us all.

This is interesting, because I see AARP as being one of the counter-balances to the pharmas on the issue of importing drugs. I would not object to PACs working the way you see them. The problem is that in my judgment all too often the group with the deepest pockets is the side that wins. And that means that decisions are NOT being based on the merits of the case and it is accidental if justice/wisdom happens to prevail.