- Joined
- Nov 23, 2019
- Messages
- 31,526
- Reaction score
- 65,527
Ah, I see your point, that’s my misunderstanding, To the point that @Deorum made, I’d agree with him that lobbying in the classic sense—in which one meets with a congressman, or writes/calls/emails them to persuade them to address a certain issue—is petitioning the government under the 1st Amendment.Campaign contributions are limited and have been. But lobbying is different. Calling a politician or sending a letter is lobbying. When people use the term, it often refers to professional lobbyists, who build relationships and then try to leverage them for clients. I don't see how any of that can be stopped without major violations of freedom of speech.
I could have framed it better by using examples of corporations who are funneling money to various political entities to achieve a result. I think then the issue would hinge on whether we view a corporation or legal entity doing that as the same action as a citizen meeting with a congressman to express a viewpoint or try to persuade them on an issue—and I’m not totally sure that they are the same (this was one of Justice John Paul Stevens’ arguments in his Cirizens United dissent).
We limit speech and expression of corporate entities all the time in various ways. Maybe we could at least change the way the financial contributions are tracked to something more centralized, where ordinary citizens could follow it better. It’s a sad irony when corporations’ power to petition ends up limiting ordinary citizens’ ability to get redress.