@checkoutanytime I honestly think that people that study and talk about the idea behind a democracy, disagree with you.
The basic concept of a democracy is that the "demos" [i](or political body / the people)[/i] govern themselves. In liberal democracies that idea gets toned down a bit by regulations that the governing body has to play by.
But that governing body, put in place by the people and controlled by the people, still needs to be informed from what is happening in society. That's where lobbying comes in. Lobbying, is often used only for what people perceive as negative. But it goes from individuals, to all kinds of midfield organisations to compagnies. It's not soly a corporate thing. In our society however, because of the huge inequality between certain members and institutions of our society, certain groups have more resources to spend on lobbying then others. And those people this can lead to corruption. But that people inform their politicians and ask for changes in legeslation, is just "the people" voicing their needs and wants too their governing body in the hope that body makes legeslation for the society. Without lobbying, you would get what people are actually complaining about, that politicians live in an ivory tower that isn't accesible for the people that they govern. That would also be a thread to the idea that people govern themselves, just like a minority of rich people having more access to the governing body then the other members of society is a thread to that idea.
@checkoutanytime Your representatives still need to be open to everyone they represent. It's not when someone wins an election, that they are suddenly qualified to understand all the nuances in a political question. Those kind of über-politicians don't excist. That's why when legeslation is being made, or issues are put on he political agenda, all kinds of interestsgroups and individuals can shine their light on the issue, hopefully so that the representatives can have a bigger picture on what they have to watch out for when legeslation is being made.
@Kwek00 which i agree. Despite democracy or its outside influence we have bonding laws to how this will function, for the greater good of the sovereign nations republic, that i see as in jeopardy by how far the things you mentioned are allowed.
@checkoutanytime Well, if we take the absolute other way, where you just blatantly denie any form of lobbying. You'll just have legeslators rulling soley with their own knowledge that comes from their own aids and think tanks. And the information of those people in the field that actually will be confronted with this legeslation, will be denied any chance to vent their concerns.
Clarification: I've said "midfield organisations" ... but I think the correct term in English is "Civil Society". And it's a pretty important part of stimulating participation in a democracy.
@Kwek00 thats absolutely not what im saying. Im saying wealth, and lobbyists buyouts take president in our legislators judgment, over we the people's interests.
@checkoutanytime You keep saying "lobbyists", so you do take an absolute stance here. While "lobbying" isn't nescesarily wrong. There are just forms of lobbying that are dangerous. And the difficult question, is always how to define those that endanger the concept of democracy vs that what benefits the concept of democracy. And then create a framework were one is allowed and the other is not.
We already do that to a degree btw. Like discussions that are resolved by paying the arbiter [i](that person that makes the ultimate descision)[/i] to vote in the payers favourite we label is illegale in most countries. In other words, influecing politicians by bribing is a form of lobbying that we hope to ban in practise. Maybe the list of what should be banned, should be a bit longer then it's today, instead of taking on all forms of lobbying.
@Kwek00 the ones that put up money for a vote = piracy. The lobbyists that are merely people never get heard anymore, is the fine line the fore fathers laidout for all citizens in the first amendment.
@checkoutanytime You can say that... but are there actually measurements of any of this? Or is this a perception? I honestly don't have the answer for that in the united states. I just know that over here, a lot of these organisations are often invided and then a compromise is being made. And sometimes the organisations that sat at the table have the same criticism that you have, and sometimes a good number of them felt that they were listened too. At the end of the day, it's still the representative that decides. Then voters [i](that's us)[/i] need to be informed about these things so they can make an informed choice to either reward that politician or kick that person out of office.
