Re:Mapped: The Migration of the Millionaires in 2023
by plagiarist on Saturday November 25, 2023 @12:55PM
(#38415115)
Well, yes, if you substitute the context and actual behavior for the dictionary definition, lobbying does appear to be a reasonable thing.
Re:Mapped: The Migration of the Millionaires in 2023
by gruez on Saturday November 25, 2023 @01:20PM
(#38415298)
Except there's an objective difference between what's happening in countries like Russia, and countries in Western Europe, even through the former has endemic corruption, and the latter has "lobbying". Redefining "lobbying" to mean "influence operations that I don't like" is sloppy writing and placing fast and loose with definitions.
Re:Mapped: The Migration of the Millionaires in 2023
by plagiarist on Saturday November 25, 2023 @01:34PM
(#38415431)
No, it's more like refusing to describe as "lobbying" the behavior that became legal after Citizens United v. FEC. It seems wild to just, "oh it's legal and fine," when at least one justice involved in the 5-4 ruling was accepting huge gifts from billionaires.
I'm sure plenty of what you'd consider corruption in Russia is both obviously corrupt as well as de facto legal.
Re:Mapped: The Migration of the Millionaires in 2023
by gruez on Saturday November 25, 2023 @05:45PM
(#38417450)
> No, it's more like refusing to describe as "lobbying" the behavior that became legal after Citizens United v. FEC.
You realize that the word "lobbying" isn't limited to activities that occur in the US? It's a generic english word. Moreover, "lobbying" includes any sort of influence operations, not just the ones you hate that were legal after Citizens United v. FEC. As I said earlier, trying to redefine "lobbying" to mean "influence operations that I oppose, like what corporations are doing in the US" is sloppy writing and playing fast and loose with existing definitions.
Re:Mapped: The Migration of the Millionaires in 2023
by plagiarist on Sunday November 26, 2023 @08:57AM
(#38421606)
We all understand the distinction they wish to make, and your strawman arguments trying to recast corrupt behavior as "stuff I don't like" doesn't change any of that.
>Corruption is a form of dishonesty or a criminal offense which is undertaken by a person or an organization which is entrusted in a position of authority, in order to acquire illicit benefits or abuse power for one's personal gain.
>In politics, lobbying or advocacy, is the act of lawfully attempting to influence the actions, policies, or decisions of government officials, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies, but also judges of the judiciary.
From those descriptions, it seems pretty clear that corruption is a bad thing, but it's not really clear that lobbying is a bad thing. Sure, trying to influence people could involve corruption, but at the same time don't you want your representatives to be responsive to their constituents? Is a hypothetical world where politicians can't officially be influenced at all really better?