757
Same thing, different words. (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
65 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

all 66 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 42 points 5 months ago* (20 children)

Corruption perception index

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [–] 48 points 5 months ago (17 children)

    Denmark being at the top of these lists is always so fucking funny to me. We just hide the corruption in a few layers of abstraction and whoops look at that, we're rated extremely well on all the charts!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] 43 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Yeah. I laughed seeing Sweden up there. It’s as if our right wing Nazi collaborator government hasn’t been privatising and selling our welfare.

    They’re currently vowing to double the amount of surveillance cameras. Oh, and what powers the police force? Palantir. Nevermind the fact that chat control originated with a Swedish politician.

    I guess the scale works if corrupt and morally bankrupt is the top of the scale.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    But is that due to corruption or just the state wanting more power for itself? Those problems aren't necessarily the same.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Privatising public welfare to sell off to your grubby little friends is corruption. Taking bribes from Peter Thiel is corruption. One of the leading Christ Democrats has a secret donor financing her private security.

    If all it takes to buy a politician is to send a threatening letter or DM, and then financing their private security on the down-low, then our politicians are easy to buy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago

    Sometimes Swedish corruption is even simpler. Politicians get such a high salary -- motivated by that making them less bribeable -- that they realize "when I'm out of politics, I'm fucked". What are they going to do, go back to a quarter of their salary? Then a lobby org. hands them a piece of legislation, and they know what it means. It is not a threat, they know they have just been saved, they have a way out from politics.

    Johannes Klenell describes this type of corruption (among other things) in his latest book, summarized in parts in the interview here: https://poddtoppen.se/podcast/935202361/scocconomics/i-bananrepubliken-med-johannes-klenell

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (9 children)

    I don't think we agree on what corruption is. I hear this a lot from Danes in the context of "The farmers and bankers have whole political parties in their pockets" and "all our MPs are career politicians" and "you can't get a nice job unless you know someone".

    While these statements aren't fully true, they're definitely real issues. But I would suggest these are not corruption. You could consider them problematic, sure, but corruption is about using your public authority to steal and misappropriate resources to enrich yourself. Stuff like bribes, embezzlement, etc. Which happens far less in Denmark than most other places I'd say.

    The main exception is the royal house, which is super duper corrupt.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    The first paragraph quotes are complaints about influence peddling, kickbacks, regulatory capture, cronyism, and nepotism, all of which are absolutely forms of corruption. I'm sure others forms probably apply as well.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (7 children)

    I'm not sure what first paragraph quotes you are referring to, first paragraph of the report? Or of some comment here on Lemmy? Sorry if I'm missing something.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    The quotes in the first paragraph of your comment that you were passing off as mildly unpleasant but not corruption. They definitely are corruption.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (5 children)

    Ah, of course, thanks.

    But are they? If the farmers band together to form a political party which gets voted into parliament doesn't seem like definite corruption to me. If the farmers had judges and officials in their pockets that would be corruption.

    If the majority of MPs have educated themselves within law, economics and social science to pursue a career of representing their communities, and they are then elected due in part to their experience ane expertise on state and governance matters, that's not definite corruption to me. It's not clear to me that someone like that cannot earnestly represent their electorate.

    If someone is looking to make a hire, and they have many qualified candidates, them choosing to hire someone recommend by their peers in the field doesn't seem like definite corruption. If they were to hire their family members or friends based despite lower qualifications, that would be nepotism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    The problem is all those ifs, and they're giant ifs. Always assuming the best case scenario is the best possible way to get completely fucked over. Obviously those strawman statements are not proof alone of corruption, but to entirely ignore them as potential warning signs is beyond foolish. And to say they don't describe corruption is demonstrably false.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Always assuming the best case scenario is the best possible way to get completely fucked over.

    I agree, but here we are talking about reality, not assumptions. In this particular context, the majority of cases are as I describe. It's completely justified to keep these things under intense scrutiny (Denmark is relatively transparent and has a functioning critical press across interests and political spectra), but if you assume the worst you start seeing corruption where there might be none.

    And to say they don't describe corruption is demonstrably false.

    I'm not sure I see that, but I could well be wrong. Would you care to demonstrate?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    Oh yeah, no problem! Sorry I don't have a webcam or anything, so it'll have to be a textual demonstration.

    Web searches the phrase "forms of political corruption"

    Clicks most relevant link, probably Wikipedia

    Reads the webpage, processes the words thereon

    Notices how people in politics committing fraud, graft, influence peddling, bribery & kickbacks, regulatory & state capture, nepotism, patronage, and cronyism (see, I knew more applied) would very reasonably cause their constituents to have complaints like "private minority interests have major political parties in their pockets" and "lots of our politicians have been in their positions of power for an unreasonable amount of time" and "you can't get a good job or government contract or research grant or get a pothole filled unless you 'know somebody'"

    Demonstration complete, now it's your turn! Let me know if you need to "see" any of that again, I can always s l o w i t d o w n for ya ;)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    Notices how [corrupt] people [...] would very reasonably cause their constituents to have complaints like [...]

    Thanks. Sounds like you're saying the issues I mentioned could be signs of corruption, but are not corruption in themselves? Which is true for sure, but they don't necessarily imply corruption.

    And in this particular case, they get scrutinized and very little actual corruption is found.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    Not signs of, examples of. Like you say, not every case of these issues is corruption, but plenty (worldwide) are. And yeah, I'm not arguing about the actual statistics in Denmark, I've no idea and you've presented no actual data. Which is fine, I probably wouldn't read it anyway, my Danish is more than rusty. You're welcome.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago

    The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) aggregates data from a number of different sources that provide perceptions by business people and country experts of the level of corruption in the public sector.

    Each data source that is used to construct the CPI must fulfil the following criteria to qualify as a valid source:

    • Quantifies perceptions of corruption in the public sector

    • Be based on a reliable and valid methodology, which scores and ranks multiple countries on the same scale

    • Performed by a credible institution

    • Allow for sufficient variation of scores to distinguish between countries

    • Gives ratings to a substantial number of countries

    • The rating is given by a country expert or business person

    • The institution repeats their assessment at least every two years

    Okay so definitely some institution bias there.

    13 data sources were used to construct the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) 2025:

    1. African Development Bank Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2023 (AFDB)

    2. Bertelsmann Stiftung Sustainable Governance Indicators 2024 (SGI)

    3. Bertelsmann Stiftung Transformation Index 2026 (STI)

    4. Economist Intelligence Unit Country Risk Service 2025 (EIU)

    5. Freedom House Nations in Transit 2024 (FH)

    6. S&P Global Insights Business Conditions and Risk Indicators 2024 (GI)

    7. IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook 2025 (IMD)

    8. Political and Economic Risk Consultancy 2025 (PERC)

    9. The PRS Group International Country Risk Guide 2025 (PRS)

    10. World Bank Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2024 (WB)

    11. World Economic Forum Executive Opinion Survey 2025 (WEF)

    12. World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2025 (WJP)

    13. Varieties of Democracy Project 2025 (VDEM)

    Looking over the short blurbs in their methodology reads like a list of "freedom index think tanks" that are the exact people that claim it's not corruption it's lobbying. Especially when they land on conclusions like Israel is basically as corrupt as South Korea because we just mark the west bank and Gaza as no data...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 20 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    The amount of defense of lobbying in this thread is interesting.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago

    It's the split between people who see all lobbying as corruption and those who see lobbying as trying to influence elected representitives, encompassing both the immoral and the benign.

    No one really disagrees that we shouldn't allow people to buy votes and that we should make it possible for a representatives constituents to communicate with them.

    Another way to phrase it is that there's a lot of "voting is pointless, we should get rid of it and just ask people what they want to do instead" energy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 13 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    In france is not lobbying, is "asking an exception to the prefecture" ... exception to the application of the law, and you have to pay for that. So only wealthy people and big firm could ask for it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 10 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    I’m pretty sure it’s not just the countries colored red. Even China allows lobbying

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] -1 points 5 months ago (3 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    I think you’ve misunderstood my comment because that’s kinda the point I was trying to make.

    This graph is implying “the west” is corrupt because they have lobbying. China was my counter example because it too allows lobbying but a) was left off the map and b) is likely not a country that OP would call corrupt.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    If we want to test your assertion you would need to define “The way we do in the west” because I’m reasonably certain none of the countries shown in red have the exact same laws around lobbying.

    With regards to “kneeling to fossil fuels,” I’m pretty sure there are more factors at play in that issue than just the laws surrounding lobbying specifically.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    I call I corn holing.

    My wife doesn't let me out much

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Please, thank your wife for me 😉

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago

    As does much of the rest of the county. I slip my chains a few times a week when the cats distract her with snuggles and bringing her lizards for her to eat (my wife has the strangest diet). (it is very light on the lizard but please do not tell my cats it will hurt their feelings).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    didn't know norway was cool like that

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Many politicians take jobs in pr firms when they leave. They retain their access badges to Stortinget for life for some unfathomable reason. So the lobbyists trained by being career politicians have unmitigated access to our current ones.

    There have also been articles lately about how the right side parties have received orders of magnitude more money in donations than the left.

    Both of those things reeks of corruption if you ask me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 21 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    I'm going to play devil's advocate and be pedantic. Lobbying doesn't purely mean bribery. By its strict definition, lobbying means influencing. Was the civil rights movement corrupt for lobbying to allow equal rights for black Americans? They did donate and promise to elect the Democratic Party in exchange for passing the Civil Rights Act. Unions has and always lobbied as well. Environmental groups lobbied to pass stricter environmental regulations.

    Lobbying has understandably gained a bad connotation, but not all lobbying have evil intentions and consequences. It ultimately depends on the context. If lobbying disproportionately empowers only a select few at the expense of others' rights, like billionaires lobbying to dilute worker's rights and environmental protection because it affects all of us, then it is unquestionably bad.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    I think we can compare it to advertisements. Not all advertisements are bad. Some advertisements are about public service announcements which could be good. However the vast majority of advertisements are about how to increase demands for products we dont need and manipulate us into thinking better about bad corporations.

    The nuanced picture is therefore that advertisements isnt all bad, but the big picture is that it is mostly bad.

    We can also compare corporations. Not all corporations are bad, but in the big picture they are mostly bad.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Don't compare it to advertisement, compare it to the medium that contains the advertisement.
    Some TV is advertising. Some TV is the shows you wanted and got the thing for to begin with.
    The goal isn't to eradicate the medium, it's to get rid of the ads, or at least limit them to a reasonable and regulated set of public service announcements.

    The problem isn't your right to petition the government. It's that it's easy for a business to likewise petition them, and they can make it clear that people who support their policies often get seats on boards with nice perks later, when they're out of office.

    You want to keep your right to petition. That's called lobbying. Outlawing lobbying is saying it should be illegal for you to try to get your representative to vote in a particular way.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    And that's why Im an horizontalist. I dont believe we should channel our force into a beatling that enforce their will upon vast lands. Corruption is inevitable. We should rather strive for democratic confederations where we rule democratically in participation with our neighboring communities.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago*

    I see your point. But if it's advocating for a good cause to influence politics, what should it be called to avoid the negative connotations associated with lobbying? I might sound like I am splitting hairs, but if lobbying is to be banned because of bad faith actors, then it leads to the slippery slope of also banning advocacy for a good cause. This is ultimately an ontological debate and maybe even coin a new word to describe "good lobbying" to separate it from bad lobbying".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    Anyone know how the neoliberal sunglass smiley became a symbol for neoliberalism?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    No they still have corruption

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    Hey skill issue not our fault we have the best marketing departments. /s

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    Canadians are the worst.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    The question is the answer. If you don’t have lobbying you have corruption because that’s how people work. By providing the legal route it’s visible, provides opportunity for oversight and regulation.

    Problem being when that lobbying comes with lots of money and media in hand and that money outweighs the ability of citizens to compete with the uber-wealthy corporations and people. When regulating lobbying fails or is captured by the rich it’s no better than corruption.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 1 point 5 months ago (16 children)

    effectively unregulated lobbying. Lobbying is just asking the government for stuff.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 25 points 5 months ago (15 children)

    Can I legally enter the Capital Building to speak to my Congressman?

    Dozens of veterans and military family members protesting the Iran war were arrested by U.S. Capitol Police on Monday after they occupied the Cannon House Office Building in Washington, D.C.

    If the only access to your congressman is through privatized channels and pay-to-play events, then Lobbying is de facto Bribery.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (14 children)

    Alright, in all honesty: do you see the distinction between making an appointment and "occupying" a common space in a congressional office building?

    “A group of people legally entered the Cannon House Office Building after they went through screening,” U.S. Capitol Police said in a statement to The Hill. “Demonstrations are not allowed inside Congressional Buildings, so when they started to protest and refused to stop, we began arresting them. Approximately 66 people were arrested for D.C. Code § 22–1307 – Crowding, Obstructing, or Incommoding – for illegally protesting inside the Cannon House Office Building.”

    As it says in the first sentence of the police statement, they legally entered the building, so... Yes, you can legally enter the congressional offices to speak to your congressperson.

    How do you picture people making requests for the government to do things in a world where lobbying is illegal? How do you see it being different from applying regulation of literally any kind?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago* (13 children)

    do you see the distinction between making an appointment and “occupying” a common space in a congressional office building?

    Largely in how it is reported. You can make an appointment and your Congressman can fail to show. There is no consequence.

    You can go to a Congressman's office and camp out waiting to speak to them, and that's a crime.

    Demonstrations are not allowed inside Congressional Buildings

    Passive Voice. Who made this rule? Who enforces it? Who is it enforced against? What is the purpose of the rule?

    How do you picture people making requests for the government to do things in a world where lobbying is illegal?

    Lobbying IS illegal, outside the channels of private donation and sponsored solicitation.

    You cannot demand to see your Congressman and your Congressman is under no obligation to speak with you. Any attempt to approach your Congressman without permission is a crime.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (12 children)

    Lobbying IS illegal, outside the channels of private donation and sponsored solicitation.

    https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-7-13-5/ALDE_00013494/

    That's patently untrue, and why the distinction matters between what we have, which is lobbying where corporate entities can create a quid-pro-quo situation rather easily, and what any reasonable person would support: people telling their represtitives their interests and how best to represent them.
    Sending a letter is lobbying. A phone call or email is lobbying.

    You're not upset that lobbying is legal, you're upset that people with the ability to offer things more valuable than their personal vote as an individual aren't stopped from doing it.

    So again, how do you envision people asking for things from their represtitives that isn't just "properly regulated lobbying" rephrased?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (11 children)

    That’s patently untrue

    It is evidenced by constituent lobbyists being dragged out of Congress in handcuffs

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (10 children)

    Yes, because "can't hold a demonstration in one office building" is precisely the same as "no citizen right to petition their representative".

    Are you just picking bits you think you can argue against and ignoring everything else? What's the point of that?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    “can’t hold a demonstration in one office building” is precisely the same as “no citizen right to petition their representative”.

    When you're locked out from your rep, you have no legal mechanism to get their attention

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    Again, you're reducing not being able to protest inside a specific office building to not being able to communicate with them, see them, or protest them.

    Considering you seem to be basing this off of, generously, a few instances of people being arrested for protesting inside congressional offices with no context for how many people do communicate with their representative, and you're arguing against "people should be able to talk to their representative, and the problem is people with more influence than their individual vote", I'm honestly not sure what your point is. It doesn't seem like you disagree with what the word means.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago* (7 children)

    not being able to protest inside a specific office building

    In response to representatives ignoring their constituents, yes

    a few instances of people being arrested for protesting

    What is the minimum number of arrests necessary to justify concern? Show your work.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (6 children)

    https://docs.house.gov/meetings/HA/HA27/20251217/118781/HHRG-119-HA27-Wstate-NebloM-20251217-SD001.pdf

    About 10% of the people who tried to talk to their representative in any way reported a face to face meeting.

    You're shifting the goal. You started at saying that arrests show that you have no right to see your representative, and now you're talking about how many are concerning. Those are different things.
    1 person being arrested for trying to talk to their representative is concerning.
    I can't tell you how many people being arrested for protesting inside the building is concerning because sometimes the objective is to be arrested, so there are just no good numbers.

    That it's trivial to find numbers of people who have gone and spoken to their representative, and instruction sheets for how to have an effective meeting from various groups tells me that access isn't the issue.
    Your representative could individually meet with every constituent every year and the petroleum industry association would still be able to offer a lucrative no-work board seat once they got out of office.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (5 children)

    About 10% of the people who tried to talk to their representative in any way reported a face to face meeting.

    Willing to take 10:1 odds that thefolks at the congressional sit-in all attempted to make appointments with their respective congresscritters as well.

    That it’s trivial to find numbers of people who have gone and spoken to their representative, and instruction sheets for how to have an effective meeting from various groups tells me that access isn’t the issue.

    As someone who has gone through the process, it is not trivial at all. I've campaigned for Congressmen who have given me maybe an hour of their time over the course of months, and never individually.

    I've been talked at by Congressmen routinely. I've had maybe two actual interactions with my own congressman (both adversarial). I've been stood up by a Congressman at some office hours event more than a dozen times. The best shot you have at directly engaging with a Congressman - in my own experience - is by protesting them at one of their fundraising events. Actual civilian lobbying is borderline impossible. So much so that I've been solicited by professional lobbyists more times than I've been in conversation with a sitting representative.

    It is truly asinine to suggest lay voters can speak with their reps through anything that isn't a megaphone or a daisy chain of professional solicitors.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (4 children)

    Alright. It's difficult to speak with your representative face to face. I'll readily accept that.
    That's what makes you disagree with the assertion that the problem isn't people talking to their representative, but that it's too easy for corrupt people to talk to them?

    Again: what's your ideal state, and how is it different?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)

    It’s difficult to speak with your representative face to face.

    I'm glad we've made it this far.

    That’s what makes you disagree with the assertion that the problem isn’t people talking to their representative, but that it’s too easy for corrupt people to talk to them?

    It's what makes me equate lobbying with corruption. When even basic constituent services are pay walled by professional insiders, the only people who can lobby are the folks that paid the bribes.

    Again: what’s your ideal state, and how is it different?

    Any amount of Congressional gatekeeping (which is what constituent services ultimately amount to) should be handled by public agencies. But more than that, public services would be fully opt-out automatic such that things like Medicare sign-ups and admittance to officer's college wouldn't be predicted on access to a legislator's office.

    But I'd settle for expanding the number of Congressional reps such that they averaged closer to 30k constituents rather than 600k. Then, at least, there is not the practical consideration of a single congressman attempting to service half a million people or more.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    Cool. No problems with the majority of that. (I'd question the difference between a public agency and a Congress persons office staff, but it's kinda irrelevant)

    So we make all these changes and also block people from having meetings with their representitives?
    If that's not what you're saying, then I'm not entirely certain why you disagreed with my statement that the problem is "effectively unregulated lobbying", and not "people generally talking to their reps".

    I'm glad we've made it this far.

    You know that I never actually said it was easy or didn't need improvement, right?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    So we make all these changes and also block people from having meetings with their representitives?

    I don't think I suggested that at all. On the contrary, the 30k Reps rule would make meetings with constituents far easier.

    I might move in the other direction and require meetings with constituents on a periodic basis. That, along with a host of other strictures on how a sitting or retired legislator can make money, host/attend events, or otherwise avail themselves of corporate/foreign patrons.

    But that means a lot of policing of the legislature and prosecuting of offenders, which affords the executive enormous leverage over individual seats reps. So maybe not.

    I think expanding the legislature solves an immediate problem of access to reps and dilutes the power of individual reps relative to their voters. I'll spot you it isn't foolproof.

    You know that I never actually said it was easy or didn’t need improvement

    You came in dismissing the reality of lobbying relative to the idealized view.

    You seen much more grounded in the facts as they exist today, now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    I didn't think you were saying that, as I said in the next sentence. I'm confused because everything you've said is just a way of addressing what I was saying, so being so adamantly opposed is just bizarre.

    I never dismissed any realities. I think the notion that "lobbying is corruption and should be illegal" is silly because it's advocating to remove the ideal that should be increased instead of focusing on the corruption.
    I disagree that "uncommon" or "difficult" is the same as "not legal", "pay walled" or "impossible". I disagree that protesting is the same as lobbying, and that arresting a protester is the same as evidence that lobbying is illegal.
    Not the same as dismissing the problems with any of them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent