That does not explain how they get their results.

By the way, is it illegal if the bribes are called campaign contributions or are sent to places the target wants money to go, like a charity that helps their political ambitions?

If there is a quid pro quo, then it's illegal, regardless of how the payment is characterized.

The issue isn't how the payment is characterized. The issue is how the quid pro quo is characterized. Not to mention the simple fact that access is proportional to influence, and money is proportional to access. But since those proportional relationships don't come with a money-back guarantee, or a tax-deductible receipt, they don't really look like the narrow definition of payment that the courts would be interested in.

Then how do lobbyists achieve results? The idea of a lobbyist seems like an impossibility to me without quid pro quo.

Lobbyists: 1) get issues on politicians' radars; 2) provide them with data, arguments, and sample legislation to advocate for a position; and 3) convince politicians that particular measures will be favored by relevant constituencies.

It's almost never going to be the case that a lobbyist will convince a politician to support a measure they wouldn't otherwise support. Politicians all have agendas and preconceived notions. The most important thing lobbyists do is help politicians filter through he universe of proposals and convince them that particular ones fit within their preconceived worldview and platform.

I think many people have a hard time even conceiving that politicians could support big companies without getting some sort of kickback or campaign contribution for doing so. But a politician's first, second, and third top priorities are jobs. Big companies control the jobs, and for better or worse what's bad for big companies is often, at least in the short term, bad for jobs.

I upvoted because it's an interesting perspective, but I'd like to know where you get this information from. Is it a first-hand account? It makes sense that jobs are a priority and that politicians prioritize helping companies. And I'm sure that "a lobbyist will convince a politician to support a measure they wouldn't otherwise support" happens at least some of the time, but I don't have a sense of how frequent that is vs. legalized bribery and regulatory capture.

And besides, if a politician passed a bad law thinking he did a great thing for society because corporate marketing was very convincing, does that make a difference?

My wife was a lobbyist. I wish I had quantitative evidence, but my impression is that lobbying is mostly just reinforcing favorable narratives. I think phrases like "legalized bribery" and "regulatory capture" are thrown around casually without much supporting evidence.

As to your last point: what is a "bad law?" Does anybody really have any idea what works and what doesn't? Did the repeal of Glass-Steagall cause the 2008 crash? We really have no idea. Did NAFTA leave consumers better off? Who knows? Do minimum wages increase unemployment? Experts disagree. It's effectively impossible to determine what impact laws really have, especially on the economy. Laws and policies aren't judged as "good" or "bad" except in history books. They're judged based on whether they fit into ideological frameworks and prevailing narratives. And voters are part of that. They want politicians who will vote for laws that fit their preferred narrative.

In the same way that an automobile company advertisement on broadcast television may increase the number of potential customers visiting dealerships to buy a new car.

The advertisement makes you want that car, or at least makes you aware that it exists, which influences your behavior in the future, when you are actually able to buy.

The lobbyist never knows if the investment of time and effort is successful until after the vote is cast, and has no recourse whatsoever if is cast the "wrong" way. The car company can't demand a refund for its advertising if not enough extra people want to buy their cars. Watching the ad does not obligate anyone to buy. Lobbying does not obligate anyone to vote in a particular way.

Of course, as the lobbying game is played in multiple iterations, it is certainly a winning strategy to "stay bought". If a lobbyist invests a lot of effort into getting you to change your mind, they will likely continue to do so if you voluntarily act to make that investment pay off every time. There doesn't need to be a legally recognizable quid pro quo. The implicit deal is that consistent cooperation will be rewarded consistently.

By providing data and arguments? The idea of a lobbyist is that you hire someone to go to Washington and suggest the politicians do what you think is the right thing.

> is it illegal if the bribes are called campaign contributions

no. and yes.

there are donation limits. So what they do, is to create super-PACs and such. which means, lots of little people and companies donate the maximum to the candidate, but all those people and companies all get their money from the same source. So in practice, a single source is brib---donating way more than allowed by law, but legally.

That article gives zero insight into what lobbying actually involves. So I ask you, what do you think it involves?

I think of it as advertising tailored and targeted at a small set of specific individuals. The advertiser has to compete for the scarce resource that is the attention of the target, then make an impression sufficiently memorable that it will change future behavior.

As such, the lobbying will take a different form for different targets, based on their individual preferences and personalities. For some, lobbying will actually take the form of accosting a senator in the lobby of their office building to discuss a possibly overlooked consequence of a bill up for consideration. For others, it may take the form of anonymously mailing some blackmail photos. For others, it may be cash in an unmarked envelope.

My impression of lobbying is that it involves anything and everything likely to produce the desired result within the allocated budget. Some lobbyists are better positioned to influence specific issues than others. If you are not allowed to lobby by offering a bribe directly to the person who must be swayed, it is always possible to work your way down the chain of social connections to someone or several someones that can be bribed to carry your case to that person on your behalf.

If you can't bribe the senator, hire their spouse to change their mind. If you can't hire the spouse, hire their best friend. If you can't hire the spouse's best friend, hire the extramarital romantic interest. If you can't hire that person, hire a photographer.

As long as getting the attention of a government office holder is worth more than what it costs to obtain, there will be lobbyists available to purchase it wholesale and resell it in manageable parcels.