
Amazon is doubling down on lobbying - salmonet
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/02/05/why-amazon-is-doubling-down-on-lobbying/
======
reuven
I'm pleased and impressed that the Post is writing skeptical and/or negative
stories about Amazon, despite (as the author notes) the fact that Bezos owns
the newspaper. He might indeed, after all is said and done, want to see it
flourish as a journalistic enterprise, not just as a business.

~~~
walterbell
In what way is this story "skeptical and/or negative"? It quotes Bezos and
summarizes Amazon's lobbying objectives, i.e. the article is itself engaging
in lobbying.

~~~
zwily
I suppose that some people believe all lobbying is bad.

~~~
dhimes
walterbell makes a good point I hadn't thought of though: from a board of
directors point of view, this may be a positive piece that encourages
investors.

~~~
akilism
I don't really see any negative spin at all. Amazon is portrayed as a business
just trying to get things done in "backwards" Washington DC.

They are made out to seem like they don't even know what they are doing,
"Amazon is really having to learn how to navigate all these things," even
though they are spending nearly 10 million dollars on lobbying, have numerous
contracts with the federal government and have a former whitehouse press
secretary as a senior vp?

This is pretty much an amazon fluff piece.

~~~
dhimes
It's what zwily said. Among the majority population, lobbying is seen as what
businesses do to get laws written that are favorable to their interests,
including tax breaks, energy subsidies, etc. In _concept_ people understand
that when a congressperson needs to learn about something in order to make a
decision, he or she should be talking to experts. In practice (the perception
is) those experts tend to try to persuade more than educate. So, in the
example of the drones flying for example, the lawmakers may be learning of all
of the good outcomes of easing FAA regs and letting Amazon fly drones, and may
even distinguish between large companies (or another grouping in which Amazon
falls) and a grouping that their competitors may fall into (say, smaller
companies) in a way that becomes a barrier to entry for the competitors. This
will obviously be seen as reasonable in some sense, but there may have been a
better way to do things that didn't raise the barrier for competition. Amazon
lobbyists are unlikely to help the congressperson understand that other way.

At least, that's how some perceive it.

~~~
edc117
Are you saying this is not how it is? There is a lot of downvoting of anti-
lobbying sentiment here, but I haven't seen a reasonable explanation as to why
yet, and I'm curious. Everything I've read tends to indicate that it's a net
negative for society when well funded, non-objective parties essentially write
the laws.

~~~
dhimes
I think it can be that way, but I don't know if it always is. For instance, in
making marine laws for pleasure boaters lobbying occurs where a group (BoatUS,
for example, or the non-profit United States Power Squadrons) will push for a
law (or to prevent one) without a real profit motive. These are about things
like requiring people to wear life jackets in dinghies or being allowed to
anchor in certain regions.

------
cottonseed
Only $10m? The sadist thing about American politico-capito-corruption is how
little the players sold themselves for. Double digits is an great return on
money. Lobbying returns 22,000%? [1] Come on, American politicians, you're
better than this!

[1]
[http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/01/06/144737864/forge...](http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/01/06/144737864/forget-
stocks-or-bonds-invest-in-a-lobbyist)

------
TsomArp
How is it lobbying even legal? Can somebody explain? (Serious question).

~~~
afarrell
Lobbying consists primarily speaking about what you think public policy should
be. Doing this is explicitly protected as legal by first amendment to the US
constitution.

Without the ability for individuals to speak about public policy, how can
there be democracy?

There is a problem. Wealthier individuals have the ability to speak more
persuasively. They can afford education in rhetoric. They can afford time to
learn how laws are written. They can afford time to learn about the particular
domain which those laws must govern. They can afford the time to spend honing
their arguments. They can afford expensive pieces of equipment like printing
presses, which have always been expensive, to spread those arguments. Does
this mean that the rich have more ability to influence public policy than the
poor? Yes. Yes it absolutely does.

There is also a question of whether people can pool their resources to create
organizations that advocate for certain policies or candidates. The US Supreme
Court was recently asked to examine this question and gave an opionion on it,
which you can read here:
[http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf)

~~~
chishaku
You and other commenters are focusing on lobbying in principle, and I
generally agree with your explanations.

But what about lobbying in practice? The revolving door, gifts, paid trips,
campaign contributions, etc. Wealthier individuals have a greater ability to
influence politicians and not just because "they can afford education in
rhetoric."

It is difficult in most cases to prove quid pro quo bribery. But I suspect
most politicians, lobbyists and insiders generally agree that politics is
increasingly a pay-to-play game.

An anecdote from Jack Abramoff, former lobbyist sentenced to 4 years for
"trading expensive gifts, meals and sports trips in exchange for political
favors"[0]:

'...the number-one weapon used to influence a member of Congress was the
promise of a future, high-paying job to a member's top staffers. 'Now the
moment I said that to them or any of our staff said that to them, that was it.
We owned them,' Abramoff said . 'And what does that mean? Every request ... of
our clients, everything that we want, they're going to do. Not only that,
they're going to think of things we can't think of to do' ... Such tactics
resulted in Abramoff's lobbying firm holding sway in the offices of about 100
Congressional representatives, he says ... 'I would view that as a failure,
because that leaves 335 offices that we didn't have strong influence in.' [1]

Note: Other than Abramoff, whom the media generally focused on during his
corruption investigation, many other people were also convicted of crimes
including officials from the White House, House of Representatives,
congressional staff, Department of the Interior, Labor Department and Justice
Department. [2]

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff#Indian_tribes_gr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff#Indian_tribes_grand_jury_investigations)

[1]: [http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/how-
jack...](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/how-jack-
abramoff-says-he-bought-100-members-of-congress/247860/)

[2]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff#People_convicted...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff#People_convicted_in_Abramoff_probe)

~~~
pdabbadabba
> An anecdote from Jack Abramoff, former lobbyist sentenced to 4 years for
> "trading expensive gifts, meals and sports trips in exchange for political
> favors"

This is true, but outdated. The lobbying rules were drastically tightened as a
result of this scandal.

The rules aren't perfect, but they are _much_ stronger and better enforced
than they used to be. Today, I think GP has it right about the primary
advantage being access and the resources to use that access, not the sort of
bribery you describe.

Have a look:

[http://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Gifts](http://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Gifts)
[https://ethics.house.gov/gifts/house-gift-
rule](https://ethics.house.gov/gifts/house-gift-rule)

------
BurningFrog
When you play the Game of Crony Capitalism, you lobby or you die.

