Talk:Lobbying
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lobbying article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Definition
Here is the definition now: "Lobbying (also lobby) is the act of attempting to influence decisions made by officials in a government, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies."
So according to this definition also public protests/demonstrations like this or even riots can be considered "lobbying"?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps add: "...in a method derived from encounters between parties in a hotel lobby." Or something like? John Mark Wagnon (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I.E. — Oligarchs 109.245.36.112 (talk) 08:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Early discussion
Origin of the term
What is the origin of the term "lobbyist" and its related forms? The article on Ulysses S. Grant suggests he might have coined it with his complaints about lobby-invading pleaders during his stays at the Willard Hotel. Wiktionary has no entry on any variant. Merriam-Webster Online, Dictionary.com, and various pages pointing to the American Heritage Dictionary failed to turn up an appropriate etymology. — Jeff Q 19:17, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Some etymology info... "The word 'lobby' dates back at least to the mid-seventeenth century when the large anteroom off the floor of the English House of Commons where members of Parliament could be approached by special pleaders became known as the lobby. It is also more modernly known as a public area in a hotelAccording to H. L. Mencken, in 1829 petitioners for special privileges in Albany, New York, were called 'lobby-agents.' It was not a complimentary term." (p112, War Without Bloodshed by Eleanor Clift & Tom Brazaitis, ISBN: 0-684-80084-5)
- This same source (War Without Bloodshed) also mentions the use of "lobbyers" and "lobby members" as precursors to the more-modern term "lobbyist." — Shawn 14:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Lobbying in Brussels
Why is information specific to Brussels included in the article? It has no place unless you're going to include lobbying information from most countries. If there are no objections I will remove this in a few days. Monkeyman 12:49, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I object. This is interesting information and I see no reason to remove it. Better expand the article. Cacycle 17:48, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Cacycle. Perhaps it doesn't deserve its own subsection, but there is no reason to remove the Brussels information entirely. Its presence will encourage the addition of further, more specific material (eg. about lobbying in other centers of government, such as Washington, D.C.) - MichaelWest 12:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Maybe it should be moved to somewhere about EU, and linked from here? It is important and has to be referenced from here, but not necessarily be located here itself. --Shaddack 13:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you want to remove this section then please also remove the section about lobbying in the United States.
- I think it all sounds like this people didn't realise that "Brussels" means the EU's goverment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 145.18.110.165 (talk) 10:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
The percentages given for the proportion of lobbyists in Brussels are very precise, and don't seem to be there in the reference paper, which says In 2000, about 2,600 interest groups had a permanent office downtown Brussels, of which European trade federations comprise about a third, commercial consultants a fifth, companies, European NGOs (e.g., in environment, health care or human rights) and national business or labour associations each about 10%, regional representations and international organisations each about 5%, and, finally, think tanks about 1%.QuakerActivist (talk) 08:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
A meaningless paragraph
This has to be one of the most laughable market speak I have ever seen. I am not surprised though at its weakness since its very hard to cover such an open lie, that lobbying isn't bribing.
See, the sentence below try to claim that, since both parties ideologies are the same, the money transfer is irrelevant. Now, if you believe in this argument, tell me where it contradict the meaning of bribe. Do you see why I think this statement is useless. Unaltered, it can define the relationship involved in both bribing and lobbying. I mean, when I give a bribe so that my business is considered for a contract, one party receive a fund and the guy bribing receive money in form of profit after being considered for contract. Both have the same ideology, money
One more thing, if the transfer of money is irrelevant, why would one undertake it then? Just let the guy make the decision. Its going your way anyway. Honestly, can someone be very frank and say if he could tell a difference if I replaced the name bribe with lobby on this page? . WOuld it be wrong to say this lobbying?
Supporters of the system respond that many politicians act in the interests of those who fund them due to common ideologies or shared local interests, and that lobbyists merely support those who agree with their positions.
- Unfortunately my friend, the world is more complicated than that. Bribery is the exchange of money for an exemption from a law. Lobbying is trying to influence the writing of laws. It is a necessary evil, because politicians are usually too busy being politicians to learn about issues, so they should probably listen to those citizens of our country who know and care about issues than just what some pollster says. That is Lobbying. When money exchanges hands it depends on the nature of the exchange, whether it is corrupt or not. If there is some understanding that the campaign contribution will lead to increased sway, that is corrupt. It is not bribery, however, because it is not breaking the law. It is still bad, however, and one would have to be pretty naïve to think that this does not happen. But one cannot adequately solve this problem by thinking of all lobbying as simply bribery. A much more subtle understanding is required. Dwinetsk 17:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, also, what paragraph are you referring to?Dwinetsk 17:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- It is important to ensure that the economic interests of lobbyists are reflected and compared or contrasted with those of people bribing public officials. In the end, the objective of both is to achieve a more favorable outcome than would otherwise prevail in a "free" exchange. Yet, there seem to a no moral judgment associated with lobbying as there is associated with the individual citizen seeking to alter the outcomes of events confronting her. If we model the cost of the two cases, it may be cheaper for the system if we legalized bribery and shunned lobbying. But we need to run a model to test this, don't we?Vincenzo 00:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincentab (talk • contribs)
inconsistent
so, i've never edited anything here before, but the beginning of this article says that the term can be traced to president Roosevelt's practice of meeting with citizens in the lobby of some hotel, then not 2 paragraphs later it says the term orginated from President Grant's lobby meetings. so out it goes until the real culprit can be identified.
Demographics
What are the largest lobbies in the US, EU, etc..?
- The Sierra Club of course! The Sierra Club is a fantastic example to put up at the top of this page, as such environmental groups of course spend millions each year to lobby congress, and have bought nearly every politician!
- Yes and what a shame that all that money is going to bringing the attention of our public officials to the public problem of overgrazing of the commons that is the earth's ecosystems. Better that it were going to other enormous lobbies like the food industry (because God knows no one would eat food if the food lobby weren't focusing the efforts of politicians on making it easier for McDonalds and Nabisco to sell us poison as though it were food for our children) or the gun lobby (which of course helps our economy grow, even if at the expense of all those children in West Africa that end up with the small arms that we dump on the global market after every military involvement, right or wrong). Ooh, those evil environmentalists. They're so corrupt! Look at what they're doing to our economy and to our stomachs!! We are so hungry and unarmed and poor! Dwinetsk 17:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism that cannot be deleted
Under the paragraph entitled "ideological" one can read:
- "Interest groups can also be created by =your mom= groups of motivated individuals"
The entry "your mom" is clear vandalism but could not be deleted through the edit page.
Merge proposal
The merge to tag has been sat on Interest representation: Academic overview for quite a while but no mirror tag had been set on this page to aid awareness of the proposal - so I've added it. I'm in favour of the merge as I think that, although the page needs a lot of work, it would make a good addition to Lobbying. Madmedea 21:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: actually, digging out my old textbooks this section may be better merged into Interest group Madmedea 09:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- I would suggest that lobbying is a particular sort of advocacy and has merit as an article of its own. PeterEastern (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
publicprivatedialogue.org
This link: Public Private Dialogue A resource for practitioners wishing to promote policy reforms through dialogue (sponsored by World Bank, IFC, OCED, DFID, GTZ)
Was added by an IP address registered to the World Bank Group (publicprivatedialogue.org is a World Bank project). In keeping with our conflict of interest and external links guidelines I've moved it here for consideration by regular editors of this article who are unaffiliated with the site. To me, it doesn't really seem to contain encyclopedic information on lobbying. -- Siobhan Hansa 18:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Poorly-constructed article
Why is etymology the first section of so many articles? It's intensely irritating to have to scroll to the middle of an article to learn anything of practical use about the subject. Etymology is little better than trivia. 71.131.204.2 (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Any reference to Barack Obama?
Any reference on Obama's rule on lobbyism? I don't see that anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RanEagle (talk • contribs) 00:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see how that would be relevant. Presidents come and go, but lobbying remains, and Obama is not specifically relevant to lobbying itself. 98.154.210.213 (talk) 05:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Lobbying and pranks
Is suitably notable to be included in the main article? Jackiespeel (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Lobbying affects people worldwide
I'd like to see something in this about "...Lobbying in Washington all by itself reverberates around the world. The aerospace companies like Lockheed Martin shape the entire aviation industry of the world with their clout on defense contracts. Agricultural policy, including who gets food and who does not in the poorer parts of the world, is influenced mightily by heavy-handed lobbyists like Archer Daniels Midland. Health care everywhere is shaped by the hard-bought privileges of the pharmaceutical companies. Because of America's economic size and the reach of its corporations, every soft football of favor seeking and bribery inside the beltway is like an earthquake somewhere in the global south." From John Tirman's book "100 Ways America is Screwing up the World." Stars4change (talk) 05:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
