I think your last point is precisely backwards. Total annual lobbying spending is just $3.7 billion a year, in a $19 trillion economy. It's a tiny amount of money compared to the stakes. If lobbying was so effective companies would spend way more money on it.

It's also notable that you couldn't point to a specific tax law, like OP asked for. Lower taxes in general--nobody needs to lobby for that, there is a large contingent of people who favor that just on principle.

Maybe most companies can get the results that they want with small, strategic lobbying. It could be both effective and efficient, from an economic standpoint. Why else would organizations like ALEC exist? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_...

Why shouldn't ALEC exist? There is a sizable fraction of our polity that believes in the principles underlying ALEC proposals. Are you upset that those people are organized enough to write model legislation, or are you upset that the countervailing forces in the US don't have something as effective as ALEC?

We have the same thing for judges. The conservatives have the Federalist Society. The liberals have the ACS. But for whatever reason, the Federalists have better branding, and are a perennial bogeyman. But all either organization does is keep track of judges that fit their policy goals. What's wrong with that?

I am not upset. Points 5 and 6 on that article detail what I believe are legitimate criticisms about the lack of transparency in the process and how ALEC is used to bypass what I view as reasonable requirements for lobbying the government.

Why would a private organization that exists to write draft legislation need to be open and transparent? The legislation is public when it's proposed, and it's the task of legislators to evaluate it on its merits.

We don't know how much companies spend in secret through dark money, individual contributions, holding companies, bribes, etc., so that $3.7B is likely very low.

$3.7 billion a year is a lot. There aren't that many politicians to bribe.

If you keep it only at the federal level and assume that staff isn't being "lobbied",

100 senators 435 representatives 1 President 1 Vice President

~7 million dollars per person per year

:)

You do realize those aren't cash payments to the politician, right?

>There aren't that many politicians to bribe.

I think this is really the crux of the issue.

If a CEO met with a politician and said "I've talked to all my CEO buddies and if you do XYZ we're all going to make substantial contributions to your campaign and PACs" that's clear-cut bribery and honest services fraud.

But if the same CEO hires a lobbyist to say the exact same thing to a politician suddenly it's "free speech" and we're expected to believe the government can't do anything to reign it in.

> But if the same CEO hires a lobbyist to say the exact same thing to a politician suddenly it's "free speech" and we're expected to believe the government can't do anything to reign it in.

This is not what happens during lobbying. If you have any concrete evidence of this sort of exchange happening, please report it, since it's a blatant violation of federal law.

It's absolutely how it works: https://www.vox.com/first-person/2017/6/29/15886936/politica...

What you're willing to pay to get something and you actually pay to get something are 2 completely different things. You will pay as little as you can to get to the result but you may be willing to pay a lot more.

It's also a matter of perception. Keeping the lobbying sums low(ish) also helps keep a lower profile. You don't want to draw too much attention to the fact that you're paying to get something done your way.

Plus, how much can you reasonably spend? In the end you're still trying to influence the same (relatively few) people, spending a considerable percentage of that "$19 trillion economy" is hard to make look legitimate.

3.7 billion is an industry thay produces 100 times the value on investment on average.

I think that person was asking what one example is.