Foxes in Charge of the Henhouse

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

...and they are greedy foxes.

Ladies and gentlemen, please turn your attention to the Huffington Post article I found today via an anti-lobbying community I watch on Facebook (yeah, I know, talk about shooting for the moon):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mansur-gidfar/theres-something-absolute_b_4177330.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

In a nutshell: there is a bill currently in the U.S. House of Representatives which eliminates key anti-speculation regulations in the Frank-Dodd Act which supposedly has 'broad bipartisan support'.  This is what is destroying the U.S., and by association the rest of the world: corporate lobbying run rampant.  Special interest groups which have essentially unlimited lobbying power in the U.S., to the point that U.S. politicians are allowing them to write bills.  Sure, there were other examples- SOPA comes to mind, being as it was pretty much exclusively written by MPAA and RIAA shills.  But in both cases, this is proof that the U.S. is no longer anything like a representative government- it is a plutocracy, plain and simple.

And while it is easy to say 'lobbying must stop', unfortunately I see three problems here (and two are fundamental with the U.S. system of governnance).  One, the very people who in the United States would be drafting and approving anti-lobbying legislation are the same people who benefit the most from lobbying - the foxes (U.S. Congresspeople).  You can hardly expect anyone to cut their own throats, especially career politicians!  Second, thanks to SCOTUS rulings on corporate personhood and campaign contributions, any kind of meaningful lobbying reform, will most likely require a Constitutional amendment. And who traditionally implements Constitutional Amendments? That's right: Congress.  The third and possibly most insidious problem, though, is public apathy.  We argue back and forth about Left versus Right, Conservative versus Liberal, with gusto here and all the time.  But really, those arguments are pointless while the system is fundamentally broken.  The fact that most Americans even are totally ignorant of how lobbying affects them and how much it has diluted the political power of the voter only makes the status quo more resilient to change.

EDIT: so we know what must change to prevent another 2008 housing collapse, or another 2013 government shutdown / borderline default.  The question is: given the above, how do we change it?

Comments

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Man, you really don't understand power.

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

MTE. I think badlydrawnjeff does not understand that money = political capital, and because of that whoever has the most money will always have an unfair advantage over those with less money. How right or wrong the underdog is is immaterial.

What we need is a way to divorce political capital from actual capital.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

If it were true, it would show itself a lot more clearly. Instead, it's not about how much money you have (because otherwise the political and regulatory landscape would be different) but what you bring to the table.

It's why groups of individuals, rather than individuals, get more done. There's more at stake.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Pretty much everyone in the world sees it but you. The phrase "money talks" exists for a reason you know.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

You've overstated it well enough, sure, but I'd rather be correct than popular, and there's not much in the way of supporting evidence for your point of view.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

lol.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

. . . I'd rather be correct than popular . . .

So why are you trying your best to be neither?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Show me how I'm wrong.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Okay. Show of hands how many think Jeff is popular?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Are you trying to make my point?

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

No, I was plucking at the low hanging humor fruit; you, though, just made my point!

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

How's showing us how effective this method of one person lobbying is.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

More seriously, okay, I'll give it a whirl.

When above I said, "Actual evidence of plutocracy is who is actually allowed to lobby/craft bills," I should have been more specific by adding "that are considered for passage." Yes, anyone can suggest legislation; only a handful of deep pocketed (and long-armed) donors seem to get any of their suggested legislation put to committee for consideration.

It's gotten so bad, in fact, that the average person is often not even listened to when they come to visit their congressperson unless a campaign contribution accompanies their visit in advance (source: NPR, interviewing a former lobbyist/House staffer). This has led to a congress that on average has become more connected with big money:

Two professors working separately at Princeton University, Larry Bartels and Martin Gilens, have been studying the correspondence between what politicians do and what their constituents of differing economic backgrounds say they want them to do in opinion polls. Are the opinions of wealthier Americans more likely to be heard and heeded than those of less affluent Americans?

The answer, perhaps unsurprisingly, is yes. But the scale of the disparity may shock those used to thinking that everyone's opinion counts. Bartels looked at how closely aligned with voters U.S. senators were on key votes in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It turns out there is a pretty high degree of congruence between senators' positions and the opinions of their constituents—at least when those constituents are in the top third of the income distribution. For constituents in the middle third of the income distribution, the correspondence is much weaker, and for those in the bottom third, it is actually negative. (Yes, when the poorest people in a state support a policy, their senators are less likely to vote for it.)

(Jacob S. Hacker & Paul Pierson, Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class, Simon & Schuster, 2010, pp. 110-111, I underlined.)

So, again, while potentially, as you say, "anyone can petition their elected official," only some people actually get heard.

Plutocracy.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

When above I said, "Actual evidence of plutocracy is who is actually allowed to lobby/craft bills," I should have been more specific by adding "that are considered for passage." Yes, anyone can suggest legislation; only a handful of deep pocketed (and long-armed) donors seem to get any of their suggested legislation put to committee for consideration.

It couldn't possibly be that those bills are better crafted, or better address an actual issue though, right?

It's gotten so bad, in fact, that the average person is often not even listened to when they come to visit their congressperson unless a campaign contribution accompanies their visit in advance (source: NPR, interviewing a former lobbyist/House staffer).

Do we have a name as to who that lobbyist/staffer is?

It turns out there is a pretty high degree of congruence between senators' positions and the opinions of their constituents—at least when those constituents are in the top third of the income distribution. For constituents in the middle third of the income distribution, the correspondence is much weaker, and for those in the bottom third, it is actually negative. (Yes, when the poorest people in a state support a policy, their senators are less likely to vote for it.)

Among other things that align with income distribution are things like education and intelligence. Is it that the poor lack a lobby, or is it that the poor are less likely to ask for policies that make sense legislatively or popularly?

Also, this assumes policies are in a bubble, and that income levels necessarily dictate who will be elected. Republicans representing poor areas still push for policies that "the poor" may not "support."

So, again, while potentially, as you say, "anyone can petition their elected official," only some people actually get heard.

Your proof, frankly, is lacking. It's not much in the way of evidence of a plutocracy as much as evidence that some ideas gain prominence, and others do not.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

It couldn't possibly be that those bills are better crafted, or better address an actual issue though, right?

There are plenty of qualified folks suggesting legislation on all manner of topics. Only those topics that help the donor class get consideration. Take ALEC, for a good example.

Do we have a name as to who that lobbyist/staffer is?

"We?" Most dismissive as a rhetorical device, implying a sense of condescension on your part. Quite frankly, it's an attempt to goad me into a bit of a snit so you don't have to defend your indefensible position. Someone with a better position to defend wouldn't have to stoop to such a cheap trick. I'm a bit disappointed in you, Jeff. Tsk, tsk.

That out of the way, I could look through an archive of podcasts from NPR and find it eventually. Planet Money, This American Life or On The Media would be where I would start.

The lobbyist in question brought some petitioners to the office of a congressman. The Congressman asked to see the lobbyist privately before he saw the petitioners, noting that he had called his campaign staff and was having trouble understanding why he should listen to them. The implication was pointed; they didn't fill coffers, so I should listen why?

The lobbyist has since gone on to work for removing money from politics. That is all I remember.

Among other things that align with income distribution are things like education and intelligence.

People sometimes wonder why fears of a returning feudal state still lurk in the hearts of people actually watching what is happening today. Your comment reveals that there are people out there who long for putting the vassals to the whip while wearing the purple of the privileged.

I walked through the Battle of Seattle in '99. It was most instructive. Yes, there were a few isolated acts of vandalism; but every act was covered literally by at least seven cameras snapping away. The result? When played back to back on every news station and paper, it looked like those ten or so really smashed windows were the entire city, when just about nothing else had been touched.

You know what else aligns with income distribution? In this country, the fact that daddy was rich, too. So few rise through the ranks breaking this trend that those few are put on the front stage and made to prance like show ponies to support the myth that this country still allows for Horatio Alger spunk that leads from rags to riches. That myth is important to the folks who decide what is news just like broken windows in Seattle. If people swallow it, they don't notice how rich the owners are and how conservative their supposedly liberal media actually is.

Your proof, frankly, is lacking.

You provide no proof whatsoever, only declarations without a shred of evidence backing it, and have the gall to question my proof? No, sir. Your argument is, as just about always, devoid of any shred of evidence or existence in the real world. It's about time you woke up to that sad, sad fact, or break out of the tightly-locked vault in which you keep it some evidence of your own.

Put up or shut up.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

There are plenty of qualified folks suggesting legislation on all manner of topics. Only those topics that help the donor class get consideration. Take ALEC, for a good example.

ALEC! *drink*

If the donor class was in charge, why does legislation and the regulatory atmosphere look the way it is.

"We?" Most dismissive as a rhetorical device, implying a sense of condescension on your part. Quite frankly, it's an attempt to goad me into a bit of a snit so you don't have to defend your indefensible position. Someone with a better position to defend wouldn't have to stoop to such a cheap trick. I'm a bit disappointed in you, Jeff. Tsk, tsk.

No intention of the sort was there, I'm sorry if you took it that way. A look back will show I have a lot of skepticism about anonymous sources.

People sometimes wonder why fears of a returning feudal state still lurk in the hearts of people actually watching what is happening today. Your comment reveals that there are people out there who long for putting the vassals to the whip while wearing the purple of the privileged.

Um...

You provide no proof whatsoever, only declarations without a shred of evidence backing it, and have the gall to question my proof?

Correct. You're making an exceptional claim, which requires evidence. You've initiated this plutocracy claim, so defend it.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

You and I have very, very different views of the political and regulatory landscape. I see it as completely formed with bias toward entrenched power and monetary influence.

You must see bear traps lining sidewalks outside preschools as someone exerting their right to express themselves.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The political and regulatory landscape it's one of power sporting power. You'd prefer everyone lose rights to try and quell the problem, I'd prefer we remove the incentive to lobby as a corporation instead.

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

I'd prefer we remove the incentive to lobby as a corporation instead

OK, you have my attention. What are these incentives and how difficult would it be to remove them?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

You're not going to like the answer, because the incentives are two things:

1) The corporate tax rate, which sets up a "taxation without representation" thing for groups of people. We cannot expect to take from the coffers of groups and then not expect them to want a voice.

2) The regulatory state. We regulate these entities when they lack a say, we see these entities use and promote these regulations for competitive purposes.

Remove the corporate tax, reduce the regulatory state as much as possible, and there's no reason left for corporations to lobby.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Remove the corporate tax, reduce the regulatory state as much as possible, and there's no reason left for corporations to lobby.

That only applies for corporations that lobby to remove the corporate tax. Most do not. Most lobby instead for reducing regulations which will benefit their bottom line.

Strangely, those regulations that affect neither the bottom line nor the safety of the public are generally left untouched. Weird. . . .

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

I think both of these arguments are rather weak given the many examples of corporations chugging along quite happily in much more regulated nations like the EU and Japan, for example. How do they manage to be profitable and stay in business with oh so much more taxation, less representation, and more regulations?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Those nations actually have lower corporate tax rates, and they have a different situation in place with the smaller geographic areas having different regulatory rules.

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

Which automatically means that couldn't possibly work here, too?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I'd love to see us go to a low-to-no corporate tax model with regulatory stuff deferred to the states.