Yes you can, even if you don’t want to restrict lobbying on free speech ground you can place donation caps and increase transparency requirements which would both limit the power of corporate lobbying

You can end donations entirely, and disqualify candidates who accept them. The government can put up a website where you can get information about candidates, send everyone bundles of information, schedule debates in a standard format with clear rules for participation, and throw events where candidates can give speeches, and distribute those speeches to everybody who wants them. You can give everybody a day off to vote.

The reason government is corrupt is because we want it to be corrupt. If it weren't corrupt, nobody would pick this endless shower of dynastic creeps.

There is no good democratic outcome for $175K a year jobs that cost half a billion dollars to apply for.

> There is no good democratic outcome for $175K a year jobs that cost half a billion dollars to apply for.

I would argue that this is a reason to reform our electoral system rather than just resign ourselves to a corrupt system. If it didn’t cost half a billion dollars to become a politician and the pay better reflected the job responsibilities (along with other reforms) we’d probably see less corruption

Is there a word for the situation where incumbents produced by a system try to maintain that system even though it's shite for everyone else?

Politicians hate electoral reform.

They only cost half a billion to apply for due to lobbying…

> The reason government is corrupt is because we want it to be corrupt.

The reason government is corrupt is because it is corrupt, and corrupt governments don't give their citizens an option for "stop being corrupt" in the ballot.

They'll just add another layer of rat finkery on top, making the whole mess EVEN LESS transparent.

PACs were limited lobbying.

That wasn't good enough...so we got super PACs with virtually no oversight what-so-ever.

[delayed]

The issue is that lobbying has two different meanings. The literal meaning is trying to influence politicians but the common usage refers to when companies and special interest groups spend hundreds of millions of dollars on donations and advertising to get politicians to pass laws that benefit them. The first meaning, which is what you’re talking about, is fine. But the second meaning, which is what people mean when they talk about banning lobbying, is the opposite of democracy.

Hundreds of millions?

In most cases, a vote that ends regulatory bodies and enables businesses to dump toxic sludge in your drinking water costs a couple grand.

It’s actually embarrassing how cheap votes are.

Yes, I've seen this firsthand. In some cases, you can buy a Federal Senator's vote for as little as $10k. Using this number on a larger scale, corporations can buy the entire senate for as little as $1 million. The ROI potential on a $1 million investment that nets you complete legislative control in your desired area is just insane.

Granted, these deals are often backended and include a job promise down the road or some similar under-the-table stuff (jobs for relatives, etc), but I'm continually shocked by how cheap our legislators are. You'd think if a legislator knows a corporation is poised to make several billion dollars if a piece of legislation is passed, the legislator should demand a lot higher than $10k.

Technically you can do whatever those representatives will vote for. So far, it's mostly been "whatever the lobbyists want" though.