You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

1
13

[–] erowidtrance 1 point 13 points (+14|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Bribing candidates is not the same as petitioning the government. Money should not be involved in petitioning the government otherwise those with the most money have the most say. Who would suggest that is democratic?

4
-2

[–] Thisismyvoatusername 4 points -2 points (+2|-4) ago 

Sure, bribing is different than petitioning, but lobbying is not synonymous with bribing. On the other hand, it is petitioning. Money is a necessary part of lobbying (travel, preparing presentations, etc). I think you are confusing lobbying with other things, like donating to campaigns.

Of course, donating is not synonymous with bribing, either. It could be, it could not be. If I believe a relatively unknown candidate for city council deserves the ability to print flyers and canvass the neighborhoods in a district, is it a bribe to donate money so he can afford that without any strings attached? That's hardly the same as given him money for personal use on the agreement he will support giving me a zoning variance.

0
6

[–] let_them_eat_slogans [S] 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

lobbying is not synonymous with bribing

donating is not synonymous with bribing

With how secretive and unlimited these practices currently are in America, there's little effective difference. Few would argue that lobbying must be eliminated completely, but supporting the status quo is supporting a system of legalized bribery. We've seen this proven over and over again. Glaring example: the wealthiest corporations are effectively (and in many cases literally) writing legislation, and then paying politicians to pass it. While that may be free speech under some definitions, it's a type of free speech that ensures only the richest ever get a say in government.