That is not true. In years past, money helped a lot, but letters and phone calls have always had some level of effectiveness. Dollar for dollar, a letter signed by a constituent is more effective than an expensive lobbiest (it helps that the cost of letters are disproportionately low - unfortunately, it takes a lot of letters to be effective).

There are a lot of "grass roots" lobbying going on for nearly free based on emails, web pages, and social media. In fact, it is so effective that many lobbiests have adopted "grass roots" mechanisms to lobby - see "astroturfing" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing.

A corporation is a group of people. A group will tend to be richer than a single person.

And a letter from that group is probably more representative of the collective opinion of the people working there than (say) a Senator's votes are representative of their state.

I've never worked for any corporation whose corporate opinion had any relation to my own. If employees can be required to distance themselves from their employers when stating an opinion on their blogs, employers should be required to state that the opinion of the corporation does not necessarily represent the collective opinions of its employees.

It doesn't work this way. The corporation could get sued if an employee (representing the corporation) says the wrong thing. The converse won't happen.

What the fuck?

A corporation is made up of SHAREHOLDERS, not employees.

Yes, I was one of those, too. And yet, people use employees in arguments for corporate free speech (as did the post to which I originally replied ("people working there")).