• Lobbying in and of itself isn’t bad, it makes our politicians aware of issues and alternatives.

      Unrestricted lobbying is the problem, I recently read that lobbyists from Amazon would no longer have access cards to the European parliament so they no longer could come and go as they liked.

      I just wonder why lobbyists ever got that access in the first place…

    •  Salvo   ( @Salvo@aussie.zone ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      237 months ago

      Owning shares when you are an elected official with jurisdiction over the industry you own shares in.

      Also, any political figure owning shares in a media organisation, regardless of whether it is traditional media or “new media”.

    • God the nerds in here are annoying.

      “Ackchually banning lobbying would mean nobody could talk to politicians anymore blah blah…”

      Everyone knows what you mean when you say that lobbying should be illegal.

    • Banning lobbying would mean no one would be able to talk to a politician/official about an issue. Not even writing your local officials, proposing a local ordinance to making bike lanes or spending money to fix-up/improve a local park. Because that’s lobbying. You’re asking a government to wield their official power and/or spend public money, for your (and potentially others’) benefit.

      Even lobbying groups aren’t necessarily bad. The Sierra Club, EFF, ACLU. These are American, but I’m sure there are equivalents of these in other countries.

      So banning lobbying doesn’t really work. Now if you’re talking financial contributions and gifts and nice dinners from those who lobby, yeah that probably needs to be more highly regulated or stopped altogether. Generally speaking, any kind of quid pro quo.

      But just talking to a politician should not be made illegal. In democracies, talking to people, talking to politicians, and trying to convince them to align with your view is the name of the game.