It boggles my mind that it's somehow acceptable for the folks running prisons to be able to lobby for the 3 strikes laws.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/09/16/117661/sb1070-p...

For context, it's not just the people running private prisons, but also public prison guard unions:

http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/timkowal/2011/06/the-role-of-t...

Yes. Which also seems bad. Though similarly I think it's strange that public sector unions can politically organize to pick who sits opposite them during contract negotiation time.

The vast majority of drug offenders in prison are drug dealers, not drug users. It's extremely rare for drug users to be imprisoned. It boggles my mind that this propaganda is kept being pushed.

It used to be my job to pull data for a large state's prison population. I can tell you unequivocally that it is NOT rare for drug users to be imprisoned. In fact I can say with certainty that most of the people attending prison use drugs.

Most low level drug dealers are generally paying for their own supply.

At my (very highly regarded) university in the UK you'd see this all the time. Pick up bigger bits, resell to friends, keep the "profit" for your own fun.

Drug dealer meaning they reached some arbitrary definition that has only a passing relationship with dealing drugs.

The term drug dealer is a bit vague, keep your weed in two bags? Must be a dealer.

This is why I think all lobbying should be banned, in combination strict campaign finance laws, and strict enforcement of those laws, no matter who breaks them (even if billionaire candidates do, or say the VP of the country. Put them all in jail if they do it).

Instead of lobbying, what you should have is just hearings. The companies could still be free to offer a witness for the hearing, but it's all going to be public, and it's going to look weird if all of your witnesses are corporate people or all are from law enforcement agencies, when debating a new issue/bill.

Open debates in public hearings where multiple politicians participate beat backroom lobbying deals any day.

It is built into the assumptions of the country that some people will argue in their own self interest over that of the general public. In fact, it is expected that the majority will prefer their interest over the good of the whole. It is thenjob of Congress to mediate and ignore self-serving interests, but you can't even blame them for not doing their jobs, because it's the responsibility of the people to call out their bullshit and elect individuals who will act with principles. Ultimately, the rules are pretty clear; power comes from the people, and silence is consent. Ask for better people overall, don't try to blame individuals for the lack-of-will of the masses.

It's true that the people are responsible for the state of the government, after all if they didn't like it they could just revolt and install a new and better system...

In reality when you have a country of 300M, a single voice is so tiny as to be not worth speaking up. If you are in a town hall meeting it's completely different.

Which is why democracy doesn't work when you get too big. The top governmental level is too removed from the individuals as to be entirely oblivious to it. Citizens feel powerless and the corporations bypass the elective system by going straight for whoever is in power right now. The special interest power in concentrated and the benefit to them from legislation are obvious while the power of the people is disperse and the disbenefits dilute so nobody 'feels' the pain of a tariff or a corporate tax.

Governments should be kept small and local.

But the federal system in the US seems to quite successfully have been coopted by politicians who spend most of their time raising funds, to stay where they are, in collaboration with companies who supply them with funds to get laws written to suite them. I know this is a bit of a caricature, but it seems to me that it now is really hard to change this system to something which takes the money out of the politics.

No, that's not a caricature at all, that's an extremely accurate description of our political process.

My impression is that in this case it's a state issue. The 3 strikes law is a local decision.

That doesn't change the game theory aspect of everyone chasing their own interest, and a small minority who cares a ton about an issue over-riding a majority who only cares a little. (Prison owners know 100% they'll benefit, while most of the rest of us assume we won't have 3 strikes against us)

It is both a state and federal issue.

In 1994, Bill Clinton passed a crime omnibus bill (with Hillary Clinton advocating for it) which established a federal 3 strikes provision. Separately a number of states passed their own 3 strikes provisions. It is easier to hit 3 strikes under local law than federal so local bills put more in prison. But the Clintons now acknowledge that their bill is responsible for a big chunk of the increase in mass incarceration, particularly for blacks.

Of course Hillary flipped on the issue in the last 2 years when she realized that the Democratic electorate no longer supports "tough on crime" legislation.

For the record, Bernie Sanders voted for the exact same legislation, despite giving lots of speeches denouncing mass incarceration. However his voting record shows that he began voting against increased punishment in 1999. So both flipped, but Sanders did so much earlier.

> Of course Hillary flipped on the issue in the last 2 years when she realized that the Democratic electorate no longer supports "tough on crime" legislation.

To add to this, there was actually a huge groundswell of support from black communities in the 90s for toughening enforcement of (and punishment for) crime, including drug-related crime.

In retrospect, the policies were a complete disaster at achieving their original goals, but it's rather frustrating that the 2016 dialogue completely ignores the context in which those laws emerged.

Yes, 90s-era crime laws are largely responsible for mass incarceration of black Americans today. But it's not quite correct to portray the decision in the 90s to support those laws as a political decision against black Americans. At the time, it was perceived by many black advocacy groups to be the necessary response to the devastating effects that crime was having on their communities.

exactly. for as long as you can pour money into lobbying and thus influence (mild term) laws, those laws governing people, lives, don't expect anything good to happen. of course the current system allows ways to fight against this but those ways are so hard implement compared to the way of lobbying (pour insane amount of money cause you have it and they generate even more money) that has no sense practically. am I skeptical? no. we have everything we deserve. and we will continue to have exactly what we deserve, not a single bit more or less.