I wonder if the index treats lobbying and donation millions to support elections as corruption.

Such activities are illegal and considered corruption in most countries.

From their technical methodology note[1], they require their data sources to account for "state capture" and the usage of "public office for private gain". Take that as you wish, and feel free to look further at their sources[2]; however, I'd assume from that statement that they do account for lobbying and donations.

The US is not unique. If you see something happening here, it is almost always happening in other western countries, and acting like we are the only to have a problem does a disservice to worldwide development.

[1] http://files.transparency.org/content/download/2183/13748/fi...

[2] http://files.transparency.org/content/download/2183/13748/fi...

> I wonder if the index treats lobbying and donation millions to support elections as corruption. Such activities are illegal and considered corruption in most countries.

Lobbying has nothing to do with donating money, and lobbying elected representatives is definitely not illegal in most democracies.

I explicitly wrote "lobbying AND donation".

Please don't twist conversation into debates about semantics: it's not helpful.

> I explicitly wrote "lobbying AND donation". Please don't twist conversation into debates about semantics: it's not helpful.

Yes, and you said that both are illegal in most "other" counties. Except lobbying isn't illegal in any healthy democracy, including in Europe. Donating "millions of dollars" isn't really legal in the US either.

Lobbying as a term in the US is pretty synonymous with donating money. If there was a lobbying group that did not donate money you would have to specify that in conversation

> Lobbying as a term in the US is pretty synonymous with donating money.

This is flat-out untrue, and repeating this incorrect meme ad nauseum simply makes it harder to address actual problems when they arise. Lobbying is simply the process of petitioning elected officials. It's a necessary part of any functioning democracy, or else there's no fundamental feedback loop connecting elected officials to their constituents in between elections.

> If there was a lobbying group that did not donate money you would have to specify that in conversation

Corporate entities are prohibited from donating money to campaigns, whether or not a quid pro quo is implied.

What you've stated is true by the technical definition of the term, but lobbying in the _common vernacular_ of the United States is synonymous with paying money. You can throw dictionary definitions around all you want but it doesn't change how it's commonly used.

The same issue comes up with the word theory to scientists vs it's meaning in the common vernacular.

As to your second part about corporate entities being prohibited from donating money to campaigns, excuse me while I set up a PAC to donate funds to a senator who is aware that I donate to the PAC and that I would really appreciate it if I got a tax break.

What the law intends != what is actually happening

> The same issue comes up with the word theory to scientists vs it's meaning in the common vernacular.

Yes, and just as we ignore people who dismiss evolution because "it's just a theory", we should take the same attitude towards people who conflate lobbbying and campaign contributions, because they clearly don't understand how the democratic process works, and acting on their demands is actively harmful.

> What you've stated is true by the technical definition of the term, but lobbying in the _common vernacular_ of the United States is synonymous with paying money.

Yes, and the "common vernacular" is wrong and actively harmful. The two things are completely unrelated, and perpetuating the conflation makes it harder to understand what's actually going on.

If you think something is broken, you actually have to understand how it's broken in order to fix it. There's no virtue in going out of your way to make it more difficult for people to understand how things work. That's how you end up with people wasting time advocating "reforms" that span the range from "well-intentioned but redundant and/or ineffective" to "completely self-contradictory and nonsensical".

Lobbying in the US is just legalised bribery.

Good question. I have to admit that I haven't read their methodology yet.