How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science

[Alan Klein]

That is not a correct review. ... read again...
also this is a different kind of lobby... i read we mainly promote our country for attracting tourists...
We do not have a NRA type of lobby that spends millions of € to promote one party or candidate for singing their tune. It is (naturally)not allowed.

It is the correct view.  You have lobbyists that try to influence legislation just like America does. Frankly, I think this is perfectly legal and acceptable.  It's constitutionally protected in the USA. How would your legislators or ours know what the people they represent want or what they consider important?  After all, representative represent us.  Lobbyists take our message to them since we have neither the time or knowledge of how to do this.  Whether it's the NRA, Kodak, UNions, The SIerra Club, Tesla, Apple, farmers, women who want an abortion, or just regular folk who have an issue that is or can be effected by government.


From the Dutch ad posted in the link I furnished.  Click on the tab called Services.  If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck....
https://publicmatters.nl/en/diensten/

"Strategic communications and influencing policy

As a public affairs and lobby agency, we support clients in achieving their ambitions to influence policy and engage in strategic communications. Whether you’re looking to influence new draft legislation in The Hague or Brussels, bring a new product onto the market or get rid of harmful trade restrictions, Public Matters’ consultants will advise you on the right public affairs strategy and the most efficient and effective way to implement it"

[BernardLanguillier]

Otherwise you wouldn’t continue to call a legal, constitutional activity “bribing” and “corruption.”

The issue being raised here is precisely that it is unique for a democratic country to enable private entities to fund elected politicians. Especially knowing that it apparently wasn't the intent of the founders of the US constitutions.

Whether it's corruption is beside the point.

The aspect I would be concerned with as a US citizen, is whether the funding of political parties by private lobbies may have an impact on the decisions taken by those politicians, and the policies they adopt.

Perhaps naively, I define democracy as a system where the political decisions are taken according to the preferences of the voters, be it through a system of representation.

When lobbying - even if it's legal - is embeded in the system the way it is, there is a high risk that the preferences of the voters of overruled by the preferences of the lobbies having funded the politicians.

I see this state of affaires as a very high risk for the truly democratic nature of the country.

You are not concerned by this?

Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig seems to be: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJy8vTu66tE

Cheers,
Bernard

[Alan Klein]

The issue being raised here is precisely that it is unique for a democratic country to enable private entities to fund elected politicians.

Whether it's corruption is beside the point.

The aspect I would be concerned with as a US citizen, is whether the funding of political parties by private lobbies may have an impact on the decisions taken by those politicians, and the policies they adopt.

Perhaps naively, I define democracy as a system where the political decisions are taken according to the preferences of the voters, be it through a system of representation.

When lobbying - even if it's legal - is embeded in the system the way it is, there is a high risk that the preferences of the voters of overruled by the preferences of the lobbies having funded the politicians.

I see this state of affaires as a very high risk for the truly democratic nature of the country.

You are not concerned by this?

Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig seems to be: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJy8vTu66tE

Cheers,
Bernard

First off, America is one of the oldest Democracies (OK federal republic),  much older than the other democracies you refer too.  So I wouldn;t put their method as better.  After all, we've been showing the world what democracy is all about for over two hundred years.  Just look at our southern borders even today how people are flocking to our shores to get some of that democracy.  They're not going to your country. 

While it's somewhat true that contributions can affect decisions by politicians, there's so much money floating around today by all sides, that it pretty much equals out.  Also, there are legal limits for private donations that you can;t exceed.  I also would separate lobbying and petitioning from donations.  Letting your representative know your issue and requesting their help and influencing legislation is the foundation of democracy.  If legislators don't listen to you because you can't speak to them, how is that democracy?  How would the representative even know you have a problem if you couldn't tell him.  Of course, lobbyists are better at getting to see representatives in Congress (or local State and City government as well).  As an individual, I wouldn't know where to start, how to get an appointment etc nor do I have the time.  Lobbyists work in the capital and know their way around Washington.
 Here's a good article on petitioning the government for redress.  I've copied a paragraph taken from one of the US Supreme Court's decisions that informs on this issue greatly.


"In Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri (2011),[245] the Supreme Court stated regarding the Free Speech Clause and the Petition Clause:[/font][/size]It is not necessary to say that the two Clauses are identical in their mandate or their purpose and effect to acknowledge that the rights of speech and petition share substantial common ground .... Both speech and petition are integral to the democratic process, although not necessarily in the same way. The right to petition allows citizens to express their ideas, hopes, and concerns to their government and their elected representatives, whereas the right to speak fosters the public exchange of ideas that is integral to deliberative democracy as well as to the whole realm of ideas and human affairs. Beyond the political sphere, both speech and petition advance personal expression, although the right to petition is generally concerned with expression directed to the government seeking redress of a grievance."[/font]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Petition_and_assembly

[BernardLanguillier]

First off, America is one of the oldest Democracies (OK federal republic),  much older than the other democracies you refer too.  So I wouldn;t put their method as better.  After all, we've been showing the world what democracy is all about for over two hundred years. 

Correct me if I am wrong, but the thing is precisely that the current situation appears to be a pretty recent deviation. As far as I can tell, the founders, those who wrote the sacro-saint constitution of the US, have never wanted the country to be operated the way it currently is.

Just look at our southern borders even today how people are flocking to our shores to get some of that democracy.  They're not going to your country. 

They are coming to the US for economical reasons, Mexico is just as democratic. They are not going to Europe simply because the US is closer.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...You are not concerned by this?..l

Not at all.

The system is open and transparent. As per the link I provided, anyone can see who contributed to whom, how much, etc. Much better than if influence is done under the table, as in many other counties. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the thing is precisely that the current situation appears to be a pretty recent deviation. As far as I can tell, the founders, those who wrote the sacro-saint constitution of the US, have never wanted the country to be operated the way it currently is...

And you know that how? You are a medium? Spoke to the dead?

[BernardLanguillier]

Not at all.

The system is open and transparent. As per the link I provided, anyone can see who contributed to whom, how much, etc. Much better than if influence is done under the table, as in many other counties.

Great then, everything is perfect in a perfect world.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Alan Klein]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the thing is precisely that the current situation appears to be a pretty recent deviation. As far as I can tell, the founders, those who wrote the sacro-saint constitution of the US, have never wanted the country to be operated the way it currently is.

They are coming to the US for economical reasons, Mexico is just as democratic. They are not going to Europe simply because the US is closer.

Cheers,
Bernard

The founders included in their Constitution Amendment One:

"Congress shall make no law... abridging...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/amendments/1/essays/141/freedom-of-assembly-and-petition


The right to petition the government originally the king was well established from Magna Carta days and incorporated in the Colonist's regular activity and law even before the Declaration of Independence.  So your argument the founders didn;t consider it is false. 



Regarding people flocking to our shores, you certainly can argue that those coming now across our southern border have economics on their mind.  However, it is our strong democracy and economic freedom that has made us wealthy and providing economic opportunity so that people want to come here for those very reasons.  Additionally, people have come here for a lot longer for political freedom based on our democracy and political freedoms.  While Mexicans are close by, we have attracted people from Europe and elsewhere by the millions, including my own forebears who escaped political oppression in Poland and Russia.  Our own Slobodan is one of the more recent examples.  You'll never convince the world that America has lost its democratic ideals and economic freedoms.  Certainly, I'm not afraid of our constitution.  Rather I'm more afraid of those who would subvert it. 

[BernardLanguillier]

How is the right to petition the government related to the funding of political parties by private entities?

How is economic freedom getting mixed up with democracy? It is perfectly possible to think of a country where people have the right to start companies without having any impact whatsoever on the directions taken by the governement.

Cheers,
Bernard

[kers]

..
The system is open and transparent. As per the link I provided, anyone can see who contributed to whom, how much, etc. Much better than if influence is done under the table, as in many other counties.

The link you provide shows that the amount of 3 Billion $ is spend yearly by lobbyists.
Surely they want something in return.
Call that democracy. I call it the law of the capitalist jungle.

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/index.php

[Ray]

Those interested in climate change issues will no doubt be aware of the very long defamation case against the Canadian climate scientist Tim Ball who accused Michael Mann of engaging in scientific fraud in his notorious Hockey Stick graph, which appeared to obliterate the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, despite the existence of numerous studies which confirmed the existence of those previous periods of warming followed by cooling.

To prove that the defamation was not justified, Michael Mann was required to provide the data and computer modeling he used to produce the graph. He refused to do so. Finally, after 8 or 9 years, the court has dismissed the case and ordered Mann to pay Tim Ball's costs, although it's not clear at this stage exactly what costs are required to be paid.

Here's the story.

https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-news-dr-tim-ball-defeats-michael-manns-climate-lawsuit/#comment-25472

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

It is the correct view.  You have lobbyists that try to influence legislation just like America does.

But not by financing their reelection campaigns, which creates dependency and clientelism.

Frankly, I think this is perfectly legal and acceptable.

And that's where we disagree.

Bribery
Definition
Corrupt solicitation, acceptance, or transfer of value in exchange for official action.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bribery

"Bribery is a crime".

P.S. https://fortune.com/2018/02/15/nra-contributions-politicians-senators/

[Alan Goldhammer]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the thing is precisely that the current situation appears to be a pretty recent deviation. As far as I can tell, the founders, those who wrote the sacro-saint constitution of the US, have never wanted the country to be operated the way it currently is.

Cheers,
Bernard

This is correct and a thorough reading of 'The Federalist Papers' written by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay covers this.  They did not see the need for political parties and were concerned about the rise of factions.  Washington's presidency was the only one where there was not significant opposition.  The nascent Republic shortly organized into Federalist and Anti-Federalist groups which led to the first political parties.

[Alan Klein]

How is the right to petition the government related to the funding of political parties by private entities?

How is economic freedom getting mixed up with democracy? It is perfectly possible to think of a country where people have the right to start companies without having any impact whatsoever on the directions taken by the governement.

Cheers,
Bernard

A political party is a private entity.  The constitution allows them to do whatever they want.  For example, if you want to start a new party, let's call it the Whole Earth Party, to make a difference in government regarding environmental issues, and got a bunch of very rich environmentalists to contribute to fund that party, that would be legal constitutionally.  While the founders didn't really "want" parties, they very much wanted democracy, the ability of people to regress grievances and petition the government to make changes in law that they were interested in.  The right to lobby or join together to petition the government was codified in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, so important was it felt.  It requires funding to present your views.  NOw here I'm not talking about giving money to a legislator so he'll vote a particular way.  That's' a bribe and illegal.  But supporting parties, whether the Whole Earth Party or the Democrat PArty or the Republican Party with funding because they support your views is not only legal, but constitutional and desirable.

The true problem is that people on the left aren't really against lobbying as long as the lobbyist represents their issues.  So for example, they're all for lobbying for more environmental regulation and would support The Sierra Club's lobbying efforts or support a union's right to lobby to protect union members.  But they're opposed to corporations lobbying to protect their workers and stockholders or the NRA "because they're bad".  They believe in free speech and lobbying  and contributions, but only for points of view they agree with. 

Regarding your last point, you can't have democracy without economic freedom.  Just look at Cuba and Venezuela and the former Soviet Union.  You can;t start a business if the government doesn't let you because they want to control and own those very businesses.  Control of the economy means control of the individual and loss of personal and political freedoms.  Even when government controls health care part of the economy for example, you lose your ability to buy or not buy on your own and lose the freedom of choice.  You've turned it over to the government.  They decide what happens to you. 

Now you can have some economic freedom without political freedom.  China is a case in point with their one party system.  For the last thirty years, they have allowed individuals to start businesses, and get rich even though they have no political freedom. 

[kers]

.... It requires funding to present your views.  Now here I'm not talking about giving money to a legislator so he'll vote a particular way.  That's' a bribe and illegal.  But supporting parties, whether the Whole Earth Party or the Democrat PArty or the Republican Party with funding because they support your views is not only legal, but constitutional and desirable.

That is why we ( the Netherlands) have state funds for parties to express themselves so there is a fair playground for all parities involved.
advertising- time on TV is also regulated and equally divided between parties.

The true problem is that people on the left aren't really against lobbying as long as the lobbyist represents their issues.

Please stop with putting all bad things to the left ( or right, or whatever) - the world is more complex than that.

Regarding your last point, you can't have democracy without economic freedom.  Just look at Cuba and Venezuela and the former Soviet Union...

I rather look at my own country that keeps democracy and economic freedom in some kind of balance.
The problem is that most economic actions are only looking for fast profit and do not take their responsibility when it comes to the side affects they might cause.
You need a government that looks at the benefits to all citizens to regulate their actions.
An example is the use in the past of DDT. The company that made and sold DDT made huge profits but was causing a lot of damage to the environment and peoples health. Possibly much larger than the profits they made allthough not everything can be expressed in $.
An other example is the Ozon layer that was shrinking because of some aggressive gasses that were used in refrigerators.
Thanks to a world wide action the ozon layer has grown again.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

An interesting article regarding Amazon fires.

The left is apoplectic (God, I love this word) about it, losing it on the streets all over the world. And yet...

"The Amazon Is Not Earth’s Lungs
Humans could burn every living thing on the planet and still not dent its oxygen supply."

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/08/amazon-fire-earth-has-plenty-oxygen/596923/?fbclid=IwAR0bR_JPgxbDZaXdvTXtZUMP7D3ztX3e8F-1Hq_-P6W9l3y7llZ_Xj34w1E

... “What would happen if we combusted every living cell on Earth?” it asked. That is, Peters wanted to know what would happen to the atmosphere if you burned down not just the Amazon, but every forest on Earth, every blade of grass, every moss and lichen-spackled patch of rock, all the flowers and bees, all the orchids and hummingbirds, all the phytoplankton, zooplankton, whales, starfish, bacteria, giraffes, hyraxes, coatimundis, oarfish, albatrosses, mushrooms, placozoans—all of it, besides the humans...

... After this unthinkable planetary immolation, the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere dropped from 20.9 percent to 20.4 percent. CO2 rose from 400 parts per million to 900—less, even, than it does in the worst-case scenarios for fossil-fuel emissions by 2100. By burning every living thing on Earth.

“Virtually no change,” he said. “Generations of humans would live out their lives, breathing the air around them, probably struggling to find food, but not worried about their next breath.”

[Alan Klein]

That is why we ( the Netherlands) have state funds for parties to express themselves so there is a fair playground for all parities involved.
advertising- time on TV is also regulated and equally divided between parties.

Please stop with putting all bad things to the left ( or right, or whatever) - the world is more complex than that.

I rather look at my own country that keeps democracy and economic freedom in some kind of balance.
The problem is that most economic actions are only looking for fast profit and do not take their responsibility when it comes to the side affects they might cause.
You need a government that looks at the benefits to all citizens to regulate their actions.
An example is the use in the past of DDT. The company that made and sold DDT made huge profits but was causing a lot of damage to the environment and peoples health. Possibly much larger than the profits they made allthough not everything can be expressed in $.
An other example is the Ozon layer that was shrinking because of some aggressive gasses that were used in refrigerators.
Thanks to a world wide action the ozon layer has grown again.

We have (had?) the same thing in America.  In fact, Obama, when he was running for President, said he would only use government provided funding to show the world how much he was against private funding.  He swore he wouldn't let private funding influence any of his decisions.  Well, that lasted about two weeks.  Then he changed his mind, told the government, thank you, but they could keep their money, and enlisted the public to fund his campaign.   

The main problem we would have over here, is that stopping people from spending their own money to make a political point, would go against the free speech protection they were granted in our constitution.  What if The Animal Fund and The Sierra Club, both green organizations, wanted to place ads on TV espousing the importance to save the Earth?  Shouldn't  they have that ability to make thier points?  Would they be prevented from do this in the Netherlands?

[Alan Klein]

That is why we ( the Netherlands) have state funds for parties to express themselves so there is a fair playground for all parities involved.
advertising- time on TV is also regulated and equally divided between parties.

Please stop with putting all bad things to the left ( or right, or whatever) - the world is more complex than that.

I rather look at my own country that keeps democracy and economic freedom in some kind of balance.
The problem is that most economic actions are only looking for fast profit and do not take their responsibility when it comes to the side affects they might cause.
You need a government that looks at the benefits to all citizens to regulate their actions.
An example is the use in the past of DDT. The company that made and sold DDT made huge profits but was causing a lot of damage to the environment and peoples health. Possibly much larger than the profits they made allthough not everything can be expressed in $.
An other example is the Ozon layer that was shrinking because of some aggressive gasses that were used in refrigerators.
Thanks to a world wide action the ozon layer has grown again.

In case you hadn't heard, but America leads the world in pollution control.  We've banned DDT and eliminated refrigerants that affect the ozone layer.  Our regulations regarding car pollution has led the world and forced auto companies around the world to comply with our higher standards.  Well, except for your neighbors, German auto manufacturers who use diesel engines.  They're still cheating. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Ah, the threat of sea-level rising. Horrible!

[jeremyrh]

In case you hadn't heard, but America leads the world in pollution control.  We've banned DDT and eliminated refrigerants that affect the ozone layer.  Our regulations regarding car pollution has led the world and forced auto companies around the world to comply with our higher standards.  Well, except for your neighbors, German auto manufacturers who use diesel engines.  They're still cheating.

Too bad that Trump doesn't share your enthusiasm ...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davekeating/2018/08/02/americas-clean-car-loss-may-be-europes-gain/#55dec44c4ff6