If the question was whether or not to ban lobbying, how do the benefits of lobbying stack up against the damage? That whole cost-benefit analysis thing...
Solution: Only a candidate can pay for ads, campaigning, and the like. There is a campaign contribution cap reasonably low as your average citizen could reach it. None of these BS PACs, none of this "I'll make a large donation if you 'listen' to what I want".
What happens in the rich candidate vs poorer candidate elections then? The richer one would get a lot more viewership and exposure, increasing his chances to win.
The problem, of course, is that the courts have struck down similar (actually, less restrictive) laws. So it doesn't seem as though there is any path that would lead us to that from where we currently stand.
I am not a lobbyist, but I am aware of the fact that contacting your representative to do something you want him/her to do is, in fact lobbying them. It's literally the dictionary definition:
"seek to influence (a politician or public official) on an issue."
My personal opinion is that an individual calling their representative is not the same as tons of money being poured into campaigns, but the fact remains that it is, by definition, lobbying.
Therefore, doing away with ....all.... lobbying, as the original post suggested we do, removes our voices from the system as well.
Is there a name for the argumentative tactic of speaking for a fictitious group of people so one can say, "I believe the thing you're saying is wrong, therefore everyone believes the thing you're saying is wrong"?
What is your point, then, exactly? First of all, it's clear the original post wasn't talking about "lobbying" as you've quoted its definition but not its actual usage. So why bring it up at all, if not to discourage those who support campaign reform simply by browbeating them into submission?
Seriously, why discuss trivial definitional disagreement when it only serves to muddy the waters and decrease the SNR of the conversation?
Because when it comes to campaign reform, there is only one way to accomplish it; legislation. Word choice and accurate usage are the most important things when it comes to legislation. You've never experienced tedious noise until you've been involved in the process of drafting federal legislation.
It's not implied purpose that matters. If you leave ambiguity, someone will read ambiguity. That's why there are entire panels and institutions dedicated to interpreting the meaning of the law.
So, I brought it up, because if you say 'we should do away with all lobbying', that does, by definition, include contacts by citizens to representatives. The original question was whether the benefits from good lobbying outweighed the drain of bad lobbying. I put my two cents in because I felt it necessary to define lobbying to render the question null through poor word choice.
The real question is whether or not substantive campaign finance reform needs to occur. Businesses and citizens both should have access to their representatives. It's whether or not a business or wealthy enough citizen should be able to effectively buy an elected official.
The question is whether or not to ban lobbying is not a reasonable one, if only because lobbying would not be able to be banned just on a principle of free speech alone. People have a voice—good, bad, whatever—and lobbying provides an efficient means of communicating that voice. The question is rather how to reduce, if not obviate, the damage caused by the role of money in lobbying without violating free speech rights.
It doesn't matter how different it is: If money is not speech, why couldn't Congress prevent the Times from spending money to write and print articles about candidates?
Have a guess. I have one: the consumer pays up nicely in the end. Lobbying is done (most of the time) for the benefit of coorporations who wan't to expand their business volume.
