"however, this body should also note that Amazon will seek to exert control over the legislative process to ensure that Amazon's best interests are represented to the maximum extent that our influence and lobbying budget will allow,^1 even if those interests conflict with the best interests of this country and its people."
1. We spent $16,790,000 in 2019. https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary... I own the Washington Post. I am considered by Forbes, among others, to be the world's wealthiest billionaire. I am also a registered voter in this country.
And some people are obviously more equal then others when exercising that right.
Anti-trust laws exist to protect citizens from organizations that try to break these rules. Amazon is teeing up.
The relevant part of the First Amendment states (emphasis mine):
"...OR the right of the people peaceably to assemble, AND to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
This is preceded by a semicolon, making this clause a compound clause. The right to petition the Government is conferred both on individuals and on assemblies (organizations), and has been since the nation was founded. And this principle has been taken as gospel in law as interpreted by our Courts since the nation's founding.
(*IAAL but this is not legal advice. Seek licensed counsel in your jurisdiction if you need legal advice.)
(Long time no see, old friend.)
What makes the modern economy so different is the democraticization of incorporation. Prior to the 19th century it took a specific legislative act to incorporate.
Right now you can create infinite corporations, with little to no traceability as to who's really responsible. Maybe there should be some limits?
By the time you get to the late 18th century (i.e. about when the Constitution was written) you have publications with titles like "A Treatise on the Law of Corporations"; just keep reading the Wikipedia entry above. That was published 7 years after the US Constitution was ratified, but of course the laws and corporations it was talking abot had been around for _quite_ a while at that point.
No, the Constitution applies to government.
But it generally protects people, (not just citizens) which in law included juridical as well as natural persons long before the Constitution.
Impossible, because while corporations are a vehicle through which private individuals act, they are a creation and extension of government power. While the power exerted through corporations is not proximately controlled by people who are particularly accountable to the public for their actions, it is nevertheless government power, and thus the power exerted by corporations can never be greater than that exerted by government, because the former is a subset of the latter.
Like lobby for legislation that protects (or makes paramount) the corporate interests, even though the people within the corporation might completely object to what is being lobbied for?
I think we underestimate how much people are willing to do what their employer requires to continue to be employed, and end up doing things that are totally legal, but not desireable in the long run.
I'm not sure why you seem to have interpreted the word “government” in what I said to mean “employees of the corporation”?
I assure you that when I said “government”, I meant “government”.
Handing over money directly to a candidate is one thing, but the Courts have been a little more hesitant to uphold restrictions on lobbying or political speech -- and the spending of money to do it -- if it's being spent by or given to a third party not directly connected to the Government. The hesitancy is most recently exemplified in the Citizen's United case that is of significant controversy.
And the most evil company in the world telling you to regulate it ought to give you some pause that maybe you really should think about doing that, don't you think?
Am I misunderstanding what you’re saying?
Yeah, I think it deserves some thought.
The real issue is that politicians are shooting themselves in the foot career-wise if they try to close these loopholes. We need to reduce the incentives politicians get from action or inaction depending on chummy relationships with big business. A good start would be more rules around lobbyist relationships, and figuring out how to close the revolving door where politicians are given lucrative jobs/consultancies/speaking-fees/etc by these businesses after leaving office.
Pick something you’re knowledgeable about. Uniquely knowledgeable. Now imagine the Congress is writing legislation on it. Would you think your views might be helpful?
Let’s say you and a few other people are in the same position. Travelling to D.C. isn’t free, so you decide to--as a group--reimburse the expenses of the person who travels. Would this be unfair?
Scale that up to a full-time job, as an explainer of specific things to lawmakers, and lobbying makes sense. Barring lobbying would mean barring people knowledgeable about specific topics from organising to inform lawmakers. That applies to large companies as much as to the Sierra Club.
The trouble is in campaign contributions, post-service jobs and e.g. fancy dinners. These are closer to, or overtly, bribery. Democracy can’t exist without organisation and education of lawmakers, and that means it requires lobbying. Democracy also cannot survive in the presence of chronic bribery. These aims aren't mutually exclusive.
Lobbying, for its many faults, helps lawmakers (who are understaffed and generally underresourced) filter and figure out which opinions are worth listening to. Even the most well-intentioned / good ideas have trouble being advocated by one smart person in this system. You need an organization to attach to that gives you credibility.
Not saying that this is the right way -- and certainly often the less privileged opinions get short shrift in this system. A good government/political structure would give lawmakers effective ways to not have to have to rely on lobbyists.
But it is the system that has arisen in the absence of that.
In fact, the law is so strict in the U.S. that you can't even bribe foreign leaders either (see the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act).
That's myopic though. It's true your "clean separation" would "solve" the problem of regulatory capture, but it would simultaneously re-introduce the problems that regulation has successfully solved [1]. Society is a dynamic system of tradeoffs; solutions to societal problems that are tidy, good, and stable are ever-tempting chimeras.
[1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/cuyahoga-river-caught...
Who is "they"? Plenty of people do want to reduce the amount of money in US politics, but they come up against the same money that's behind the lobbying in the first place.
1. https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2091... see q32
The legislators who have the ability to change the rules around lobbying are at the receiving end of millions of lobbying dollars, and they don't want the money firehose to stop.
SCOTUS stopped them in their tracks.
A constitutional amendment is absurdly politically expensive.
This doesn't follow. The argument above is that Amazon is a amoral corporation that seeks to make money to the extent that the law allows. Amazon is not considering what is in the best interest of the country. It is acting in the best interest of Amazon.
Left unsaid here would be: "We will quietly but effectively work behind the scenes to prevent them from ever becoming laws."
Sure, but this is an antitrust hearing and trusts aren't really legal in the US.
"Representatives, Amazon is a company focused on innovation, efficiency, and getting the best and most out of people, and giving the best and most to people, wherever it can.
Tech allows us to tap into economies of scale, create new products and give consumers choices never seen before, squeeze out waste in ways that were not possible up to now, and create net benefit for people in this country. Each one of you can probably personally think of how Amazon technology has improved the lives of yourselves and people you know.
We seek to do this as far as the law allows us to do, and other companies do that as well. We operate within the rules placed on us by the legislatures of this country and its states.
As you know, sometimes even under fair laws, some people will lose out compared to others. Innovation comes with risk and change -- that's an unavoidable consequence of progress. And technology has been doing this for hundreds of years. But that's what laws are meant to set the boundaries of, based on people like you determining how best to create those rules.
If this body is concerned with what we are doing within the laws, it should change those laws based on the best interests of this country and its people. And Amazon will follow those laws.
We want that clarity, and want to follow our responsibilities under the law. It's your responsibility to set out those laws. Amazon welcomes performing our responsibilities to American consumers, and we invite you to do the same to the people you are responsible to."