You might be surprised by the ridiculously small amount of money it takes to lobby legislators in the US. I've seen various reports over the years that have shown amounts well below $50k effectively buying deciding votes on important issues. To me, that would have otherwise seemed like an amount that might be effective at a city or state level, but it's shocking to see that being true at a federal level. One recent example that was heavily reported on was the lobbying over net neutrality. ISPs contributed $1.5 million to 273 members of Congress to support overturning net neutrality - that's less than $5500 each on average.

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/12/money-flows-into-ne...

That low number is not a coincidence. A PAC is limited to $5,000 per candidate per year. (I'm not sure how the number there is over $5,000; it may include individual donor money as well.)

The main influence of a PAC is not its money but its ability to be in the room. Registered lobbyists have much greater access. That's not about paying for it; it's about the fact that they are legally allowed to do so (you have to register if you meet with legislators frequently) and the fact that the legislators will agree to meet with them (they can take only so many meetings per day and tend to the people who talk to other powerful people).

The FEC rules prevent money from being used as a bribe. It's much too low for that. The organizations do donate, because they can, but it's the access that really gives them more influence than you have.

Wonder what the relative size of the wind/renewable/shale/nuclear lobbies are these days.

Highly effective and successful lobbying does not need more than one skilled and connected individual.

How about $280m? https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/trump-us-christian-spe... Almost $100m of that is from Billy Graham, which is absolutely bonkers. They've already managed to turn Poland against abortion and were a big influence in the Irish constitutional referendum.

> managed to turn Poland against abortion

As a Pole, this comes off as incredibly arrogant and self-centered. People outside the US have agency as well, they're not all just puppets of US special interest groups. Not everything revolves around you.

Factually, the claim is also false. The ACLJ's brief was completely irrelevant to the decision in question.

This comes off as wishful thinking. You don't want it to be true that outside entities could use money and propaganda to influence your country, so therefore it isn't true. Also, responding to a comprehensive report about the ACLJ's work to influence Poland by just saying basically "no it didn't" isn't a very compelling argument.

The report linked mentions the ACLJ being involved in several ECHR cases, and submitting an amicus brief in favor of the recent Constitutional Court decision. That's it. You think that's enough to push the government and judiciary of a nation of 40 million into confrontation with a large social movement, with mass ongoing protests. And it's me who's naive?

Again, it takes a serious amount of arrogance to read two paragraphs of text in a report and believe yourself to be better informed than someone who spent all of their life immersed in the historical and social context of what's going on. So, with all due respect, I have the same advice for you as for the original post I replied to: Get over yourself. Not everything in the world is about Trump.

It's still remarkable that Poland is the first European country to head in this direction, and after a series of constitutional crises. The kind of populism that's so popular that people are demonstrating in the street against it.

We essentially have a local group that thinks similarly to US anti-abortion activists, and they are part of "coalition" (hard to call it coalition when it's all factions of the same party, informally).

How big an influence could they have been in Ireland, given the outcome?

There was definitely a presence; http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/10/28/foreign-inf...

Ya at the last 15% of the article they point this out and provide some other skeptical quotes. Made me feel duped.

An ex member of parliament and the secret lover of a premier(governor) of a major state in Australia was texting the premier that he got a commission of 5K AUD from some shady deal.

I just dont understand that because I would assume 5K is peanuts when you are an ex MP and close to the premier.

Not sure about Australia, but in the US public salaries remain low at all levels of the government. A city councilor in Boston makes 100k, a US congressman/Senator 174k.

Considering the additional costs of campaigning, personal travel, and housing for a family - you're looking at a recipe for corruption for dollar amounts that can look like peanuts to experienced private sector employees.

4 people working full time on anything can get quite a bit done over the course of a year.