0. Lobbying is a right, but one that can only be exercised by individual citizens, not corporations.

1. Anyone who wishes to "lobby" congressional candidates or congresspersons must register their financial interests

2. Make it illegal to directly accept money for lobbying services (akin to prostitution)

Sure, it wouldn't make lobbying impossible - but it would make it much harder.

Under the terms of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, anyone who spends 20% or more of their work time lobbying the Federal government already has to register themselves, and disclose both the clients they lobby on behalf of and any expenses they incur as part of their lobbying activities. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_Disclosure_Act_of_199... for more information.)

Many states also have similar laws in place regarding lobbying of state officials, though obviously the details will vary depending on what state you're in.

So charities and environmental groups can't lobby? Lobbying for them means designating a representative. How is that any different from what corporations are doing? They just happen to have deeper pockets.

Furthermore, the fact that they have deep pockets is actually important. It means they reflect an important aspect of the economy, so ignoring their interests could also have detrimental economic effects.

It's not nearly as simple as you're portraying.

This embeds the idea that someone making more money has a right to a larger voice than someone that doesn't. - In my "if the world were simple" dreams I'd say something like "every voter can spend $200 - any lobbying group or corp can spend that $200 IN THEIR NAME, but then no one else, including that voter, can. Corps/groups can still raise money and represent their members (who don't have to each spend that money) but it doesn't make a small group of wealthy voters look like a big group of voters. The groups/corps would have to make sure they represented the views of their members, or those members would start revoking their permissions."

Of course, the world isn't that simple, but that sums up my views on money in politics.

I don't see how. I just said their opinion shouldn't be ignored, which is what the OP was suggesting by banning corporations which represent large groups of shareholders and employees.

No, it's a signal that you might be proposing an economically destructive policy. You're not required to listen to lobbyists or take their suggestions.

They could create form letters for their members to email their representatives.

Some charities I belong to operate this way.

Obviously Comcast could do this too but I don't think they'd be successful getting real people to lobby on their behalf.

>Furthermore, the fact that they have deep pockets is actually important. It means they reflect an important aspect of the economy, so ignoring their interests could also have detrimental economic effects.

The fact that they have deep pockets means that they can broadcast their message more easily so they have an inbuilt advantage. There's no reason not to compensate for that.

You might be surprised; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing for the way it's usually done.

Incase you didn’t know, all tax-exempt charitable organisations are already severely limited in how they’re allowed to engage in politics. They’re never allowed to endorse candidates, or directly or indirectly campaign for them.

A "corporation" isn't a thing that exists in the world. They don't have mouths, and can't speak, so it makes no sense to outlaw their ability to use the mouth that they don't have.

There are people in the world. As well as groups of people.

A corporation is merely the pural of person. Each person in that corporation, whether employee, or owner, should have the same speech rights as any other individual.

Unlike with our our elected representatives. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_proble...)

What is facile is to argue that a law which simply bans corporations from hiring people describing themselves as lobbyists or government relations professionals will have any real world effect, or to pretend that there are no possible downsides from legislation which might prevent organisations like the EFF from existing or ensure that healthcare professionals are unable to make representations about healthcare to politicians.

It is the very problem of representative democracy: elected officials need to form an elite of superior intelligence and ability to comprehend the world, yet at the same time be firmly grounded in the reality of everyday people to understand their problems and represent them...

This is much less of a problem if you can hold down scope-creep on the role and responsibilities of government.

Yes, actually showing that political favors were exchanged for money is tricky, but still, it's better than nothing and it changes the whole discussion from "it's the system" to "who's doing something bad and hiding it?".

?

This is already illegal. It's generally termed "corruption".

You shouldn't be allowed to finance people whose decision you stand to profit from.

I guess the only "simple" way to solve this is to outlaw the private financing of politicians and their campaign. It should all be public money. Not that easy to operationalize (almost nothing of interest is), but feasible, desirable and fair I reckon.

Doing it for money - yes, that should be illegal.

It doesn't seem at all obvious to me how you would outlaw lobbying - in general or by specific types of companies. Do you think I'm being intentionally dense?

Maybe most large problems aren't actually trivial, and the reason they don't get solved by message board suggestions is because those suggestions wouldn't work. Just a thought.

If you disagree, why don't you walk me through your proposal in a less handwavey manner. The devil is in the details - surely you can agree that there are a variety of challenges at each step of the way?

You could say companies aren't allowed to spend money to intentionally target or influence elected representatives.

Sure it's hardly defined at all, and maybe I spent 30 seconds on it. But if a jury of my peers unanimously think an exec was trying to influence a representative, then why not levy a huge fine? As far as the legality, is there anything interstate commerce doesn't encompass?

Funny. Most complex problems have simple solutions. It takes lot more effort to do it, but the simple solutions tend to stick around the longest. This is based on 10 years of work exp in top tech companies :-)

The only place when simple solutions don't work is when people have other vested interests.

This trope is both untrue and tired, as most cookie-cutter generalities are.

God forbid we think outside the realm of what the Founding Fathers wrote down.

> fly directly in the face of democracy

Except the U.S. has long been classified as a flawed democracy.

The problems you list can "simply" be solved with a comission akin to the FTC. A small business can complain to said comission which would solve the matter.

It was a system designed to consolidate power among white landowners and to be extremely difficult to change. It's not a surprise it's got issues.

It was designed to be difficult to change because democracies always fail when the majority decides the rule of law is no longer important.

This is basic civics. It's taught, or I hope it's still taught, in grade school. It's not controversial, it's not surprising, it's fact.