Should the government hire lobbyists to influence itself?

[Tiassa]

Jacob Goldstein notes, for NPR's Planet Money:

The federal government owns most of GM.

So when GM hires lobbyists, things get kind of weird: The government (through GM) pays people whose job is to influence the government in a way that will benefit GM (and, therefore, the government).

On the one hand, this seems ridiculous.

On the other hand, companies hire lobbyists because they figure it's good for business. And GM still has to compete against other car companies that are hiring their own lobbyists.

We bring this up now because Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican, is planning to propose barring government-owned companies from hiring lobbyists.​

So far, the word is that Issa's bill would bar the hiring of lobbyists by any company in which the federal government holds a minimum five percent stake.

The basic question is easy enough: Should a company owned in part by the public trust be allowed to hire lobbyists to influence the public trust?

There are, of course, some other questions that are fair, as well: Is five percent too low a threshold? Or perhaps should it be any ownership stake? What about companies receiving federal contract funds for research and production? Companies asking for federal contract funds?

And, yes, there is the obvious, whether or not we should get rid of lobbyists altogether. But that's probably not going to happen, even if we start dragging lobbyists and Congressmen alike from their cars and lining them up against the wall.

Additionally, it might be worth considering whether the government's stake in a bailout company like GM should have voting power. After all, it seems redundant, to say the least, that a controlling interest should hire people to influence itself.

I can't tell whether the conundrum here is simply logical, or fundamentally ethical.
____________________

Notes:

Goldstein, Jacob. "Should GM Be Allowed To Hire Lobbyists?" Planet Money. June 17, 2010. NPR.org. June 17, 2010. http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/06/17/127903958/should-gm-be-allowed-to-hire-lobbyists

 

[glaucon]

It's hard for me to give an educated opinion on this one, given that lobbyists are illegal in my country, but it would seem to me that if private concerns can directly influence political change, while this means that the duly elected representatives cannot be held to effectively do their duty, if they were to seek similar 'support', wouldn't they just end up being complicit in whatever lobbyist faction happened to win the 'bidding war'?

 

[Tiassa]

Serving the idol

I'm torn because the basic idea of lobbying is not only inevitable, it's essential to government. But in the U.S., we do it in this weird way. Our mythopoeia includes a "government of the people, by the people, for the people". Yet lobbyists, people who represent "virtual people" (e.g., corporate entities) have easier and more influential access to lawmakers than everyday citizens. Indeed, while the industry would pretend it is simply taking part in the process of governing, the everyday citizen trying to bribe a legislator for favors would be jailed. Slap a corporate label on it, and up the stake in terms of campaign contributions, and you're golden.

I'm of the opinion that professional lobbying should be forbidden. If a corporation has a concern that it wishes its legislator to address, the CEO should go down to Capitol Hill, show up at the office, and wait in line with Mrs. Jones from Elm Street, Backwater, Nebraska.

Given that this isn't going to happen unless we start publicly financing political campaigns, we must at some point consider the practical questions.

On the surface, Issa's idea makes a lot of sense. But, to the other, that would put a company like General Motors at risk of being outmaneuvered by its competition precisely at a time that we want it to succeed so we can get it off the federal roll. The whole point of propping up GM in this manner is to prevent a massive collapse in the employment market; the longer it stays under federal control, the worse off we all are. So while it seems a stupid and redundant exercise for the government to essentially lobby itself, it also seems counterintuitive to handicap the company while trying to build it back up to stand on its own.

In other words, that's a lot of words to simply recycle the paradox Goldstein noted. But in terms of Glaucon's point—

... wouldn't they just end up being complicit in whatever lobbyist faction happened to win the 'bidding war'?

—I might as well throw another monkey at the wrench and suggest that the present arrangement exposes a new route to corruption. That is, I would not imagine it impossible that a competitor could collude with GM's lobbyists in an arrangement that would promote the interests of the competition. A big enough backroom payoff to a GM lobbyist could end up benefitting Toyota, Nissan, or Mercedes.

But this is the cost of our alleged capitalism. We've created a situation where economics are no longer tools to aid and abet the human endeavor, but Economy is an idol to be worshipped and served by the People. We feared the Barbary pirates, Nazis, Communists, and now the terrorists. Yet Walt Kelly seems to have had it right: "We have met the enemy, and He is us."

 

[GeoffP]

Kill capitalism and you kill lobbying - or at least its mode of action.

 

[Tiassa]

Relationships

Kill capitalism and you kill lobbying - or at least its mode of action.

The formal system of capitalism, yes, but its underlying premise? Greed will be with humanity for a long, long time. Perhaps the duration.

I don't know if it is still in circulation, but there was for a while a Dark Side of the Moon DVD that you could find for cheap at Fred Meyer, Walmart, and the like. It had music videos and interviews in a pseudo-documentary form, but also a bunch of bonus footage mostly consisting of the band members in individual interviews for that particular DVD production. In one sitting, Roger was talking about socialism and capitalism, and how even a socialist at some point has to decide to accrue funds; that is, even the socialist is at some point a capitalist. I think the primary difference is what we do with the money as a result of our relationship with it.

Then again, Rog was also a British tax expatriate living in the Mediterranean for a while. Take that, socialism.

Of course, capitalism is, in many ways, the "natural economy" that its advocates often proclaim it to be. But humanity has long struggled to rise up and separate itself from nature. At some point, progress in that direction becomes impossible if we insist on the law of the jungle. Capitalism is attractive because it seems easy to understand. Like redemptive monotheism, it is an easy pitch to the lowest common denominator among the masses. Anarchism, theoretically, can work, but everybody not only has to be on board with such a scheme, they have to be capable of understanding their place in it. In between, communism makes a similar demand. Where anarchism can decay into chaos, however, and communism into tyranny, capitalism is an economic theory independent of governance, and can thrive in chaos and tyranny; often, the "open" capitalistic market requires a black market. And as capitalism is a pyramid scheme, prosperity requires deprivation.

Deprivation motivates desire, desire motivates progress. Unrestrained, we call this greed. And this greed is what I see as the problem. The basic acquisitive impulse is human. Turning it into elaborate and idolatrous stagecraft is where it runs afoul. Proper communsim or socialism will maintain certain capitalist principles; the difference will be how humanity relates to its abstract satiation of the acquisitive impulse.

Or so says me, whatever that's worth.

 

[GeoffP]

The formal system of capitalism, yes, but its underlying premise? Greed will be with humanity for a long, long time. Perhaps the duration.

I don't know if it is still in circulation, but there was for a while a Dark Side of the Moon DVD that you could find for cheap at Fred Meyer, Walmart, and the like. It had music videos and interviews in a pseudo-documentary form, but also a bunch of bonus footage mostly consisting of the band members in individual interviews for that particular DVD production. In one sitting, Roger was talking about socialism and capitalism, and how even a socialist at some point has to decide to accrue funds; that is, even the socialist is at some point a capitalist. I think the primary difference is what we do with the money as a result of our relationship with it.

Yes, but isn't the ultimate form of communism the elimination of currency altogether? Or at least, it's how I like to imagine it. If we cannot eliminate it completely, at least we can reduce it's detrimental effects to something manageable.

 

[Norsefire]

No. Government is too big and powerful already, and the whole point of a free society is to be free from government control.

 

[Norsefire]

Kill capitalism and you kill lobbying - or at least its mode of action.

You do know that capitalism espouses SMALLER government influence, right?

Actually, it's more like "LIMIT the power of the government like crazy, and you kill lobbying".

 

[Tiassa]

The currency question as I see it

Yes, but isn't the ultimate form of communism the elimination of currency altogether? Or at least, it's how I like to imagine it. If we cannot eliminate it completely, at least we can reduce it's detrimental effects to something manageable.

Not a word of that can I disagree with.

However, the challenge to attaining that outcome: When currency was gold and silver, it was much easier to imagine it worth something. Now, with complex formulae describing values that are obsolete as soon as the computer spits them out, it is much easier to view paper currency and plain metal coin as inherently worthless, a representation of an abstract value that only suffices by popular convention. That is, if we decided tomorrow to start trading hemp and wheat, we could do so as long as everyone similarly agreed on the value and to honor it.

In this form, currency actually becomes a representative organizational system. That is, there are a lot of people in the world. They consume a lot of wheat, rice, lumber, textile fiber, animal product, and water, at least. In order for any system of social governance to function, it must be able to help the people account for circumstance. An easy example is making sure they have enough food to get through the winter. Or that there are enough construction materials and food to provide for the damage of the storm season.

I would suggest that this is much easier to accomplish if the "bean counters" aren't counting actual beans. A dollar represents so many beans, or so much lumber, or electricity, or whatever. As much as I might appreciate the Star Trek idealism, I don't see how it works. Specifically, I can have whatever faith in people I might—and some would say it's far too much—but I don't see how we are going to achieve the sort of resource surplus that will allow us unregulated consumption. If nothing else, in that context currency actually restrains people a certain degree. To wit, if pot wasn't forty an eighth at the minimum, I would never see the world through sober eyes again. I would smoke it, eat it ... hell, I'm sure if I had a kinky enough lover I might even try a high-THC enema°. In the end, between an organizational purpose, an inherent regulatory effect, and the real limitations of resource availability, production, and distribution, I don't foresee the idea of money disappearing anytime soon. Really, if I could figure it out, I would certainly let everyone know. But I can't. Or, at least, I haven't yet.

A certain amount of desire is healthy in the evolutionary context. But before we can get there, we need to learn what we can about the dimensions, properties, and functions of human greed, so that we might address the inevitable challenges that a socialist or communist arrangement would face. And here I'm not just talking about the people who disdain social welfare in favor of a voluntary system whereby they can feel morally superior for their charity. I'm also referring to the apparent fact that, for many people—and especially Americans—one can never have enough. By many cultural outlooks, we can reasonably suggest that excess has become, to a certain degree, necessity.
____________________

Notes:

° high-THC enema — You're welcome for that image. I realize it might take a bit of explanation, and it's a simple one. When I was in college, I remember watching a slide show in archaeology, and one of the images was a piece of intact pottery from Central America that depicted—I ... uh ... shit you not—a shaman receiving an hallucinogenic enema. Some said it was a particularly strong concentration derived from tobacco, but I'm more inclined toward something like magic mushroom tea. But, yes, it looked like they were putting something in his ass, and he was seeing spirits. I have no idea how expensive that would be at street prices, and as things are now, I would rather just smoke all of that pot, or eat as many of those mushrooms as I could.

 

[joepistole]

It's hard for me to give an educated opinion on this one, given that lobbyists are illegal in my country, but it would seem to me that if private concerns can directly influence political change, while this means that the duly elected representatives cannot be held to effectively do their duty, if they were to seek similar 'support', wouldn't they just end up being complicit in whatever lobbyist faction happened to win the 'bidding war'?

What country is that?

 

[joepistole]

I think all lobbyist should be incarcerated for life.

I have no use for them. They are a vehicle to corrupt the legislative process. Decisions in congress should be based on fact and reason not on whos goose is being greased. Congressmen are elected to represent the people who sent them there, not to get the goose greased....WAKE UP AMERICA!

 

[Norsefire]

I think all lobbyist should be incarcerated for life.

I have no use for them. They are a vehicle to corrupt the legislative process. Decisions in congress should be based on fact and reason not on whos goose is being greased. Congressmen are elected to represent the people who sent them there, not to get the goose greased....WAKE UP AMERICA!

Precisely.

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat - Splinter notice

Mod Hat — Splinter notice

Fourteen posts from this thread have been either copied or removed to a splinter discussion: "Splinter: Liberty and Fascism, Equality and Supremacy". Those wishing to continue that digression are welcome to do so in the new thread. This discussion, however, is hereby returned to its original topic.

 

[GeoffP]

Not a word of that can I disagree with.

However, the challenge to attaining that outcome: When currency was gold and silver, it was much easier to imagine it worth something. Now, with complex formulae describing values that are obsolete as soon as the computer spits them out, it is much easier to view paper currency and plain metal coin as inherently worthless, a representation of an abstract value that only suffices by popular convention. That is, if we decided tomorrow to start trading hemp and wheat, we could do so as long as everyone similarly agreed on the value and to honor it.

Agreed. An alternate of the tragedy of the commons: our change is great but it's effectiveness is presumably predicated on everyone else doing the same. Then again: couldn't one maintain an internal system based on redistribution and an external system which engages in trade? (This was sort of part of the Soviet plan which never really came to fruition, because people are of course scum.)

A certain amount of desire is healthy in the evolutionary context. But before we can get there, we need to learn what we can about the dimensions, properties, and functions of human greed, so that we might address the inevitable challenges that a socialist or communist arrangement would face. And here I'm not just talking about the people who disdain social welfare in favor of a voluntary system whereby they can feel morally superior for their charity. I'm also referring to the apparent fact that, for many people—and especially Americans—one can never have enough. By many cultural outlooks, we can reasonably suggest that excess has become, to a certain degree, necessity.

Then we need to deaccessorize. People underestimate the amount of modification that can be done via proper education. The innate social requirement for excess isn't a uniform outcome in Western society: the Amish either have no such impulses or control them. We can do the same, or better.

Why, I'm certain I could lead such a nation. Now all everyone has to do is trust me.

 

[GeoffP]

Oops. Probably should move mine over too.

 

[pjdude1219]

You do know that capitalism espouses SMALLER government influence, right?

Actually, it's more like "LIMIT the power of the government like crazy, and you kill lobbying".

actually capitalism says nothing of the such. all capitalism is the means of production in private hands. everything else is others ideologies trying to tack shit on based on their own wants and biases.

 

[iceaura]

So far, the word is that Issa's bill would bar the hiring of lobbyists by any company in which the federal government holds a minimum five percent stake.

Knock it down to 1%, mandate (and track) the investment of government pensions, etc, in mutual funds, and we're in interesting territory.

A companion bill, that all lobbying corporations must be publicly incorporated with the necessary public access to the books, would handle the major remaining problem.