I don't agree with this. I think the article does a good job at pointing out the problematic aspects of this particular lobbying campaign, and even how/why to stop it.

A lot of people view lobbyism as basically exchangeable with nepotism and bribery (strictly negative), but this is not the case.

The "happy path" with lobbyism is that local industry gives input on new laws/regulation to prevent unintended negative side-effects. Politicians have typically a much more cursory understanding of how a new law is going to affect any particular industry than people in that industry (obviously).

If you lock down any mechanism like this, you are invariably going to end up with numerous laws that are highly detrimental to local industry in a way that achieves very little (compared to laws designed with input from lobbies).

The article points out exactly how this fossil lobbying case deviated from this ideal (foreign influence instead of domestic, obfuscation and lack of transparency on originators/funding, use of methods to directly affect/manipulate the outputs of lawmaking instead of providing inputs).

> This article is written as though lobbying is some sort of unstoppable force.

The issue here is that the line between lobbying and corruption is very thin and blurry. For instance, the relation between Nellie Kroes and Uber is not an easy one to classify in a judicial context. Who officially pays you has little value in corruption cases. Whether the main culprit is the bribing corporation or the bribed official is also not very interesting.

And while lobbying from corporations is not an unstoppable force, it has certainly shown to be overwhelmingly strong when compared to the lobbying power of individual citizens or non-profit citizen groups.

"Another three meetings the Roundtable held were not found in the EU Transparency Register(opens in new window) at all."

That's illegal behavior by foreign interests.

And yes, in practice, lobbying is kind of an unstoppable force.

Those companies have people that its only work is to influence the people in charge. They have personal relationship with those people and they are all friends. It's a good thing to have friends, you never know where you will find yourself when your politics work finish.

If something doesn't work, they will try again next week or next year. It's their work, after all.

It is an unstoppable force in the sense that it never goes away - they've been trying to pass Chat Control (or equivalent stuff) since forever - they rejected Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 was back bills later and is looking to pass.

They have infinite patience and tenacity, and vary their approaches, and strongarm/pay off politicians that effectively the most organized, engaged and effective popular activism can only delay their ability to pass legislation - and by the looks of it, that doesn't work too well, either.

I can blame both. I have a big heart.

>EU regulators are paid out of EU taxpayers

As stepping stone to well paid jobs (i.e. think thanks) funded by atlanticist influenced lobbyist. Blame captured regulators all you want, they know where their bread is actually going to be buttered, and the more you don't blame the source the more intractble the problem is.

We can blame both the people who seek to buy power and those who can be bought.

I remember reading that one of the issue regarding the EU and it’s institutions' exposure to lobbyists was that a big part of the population is uninterested in the EU and EU elections.

Which may or may not be true, maybe only partially true at that, and is perhaps simplistic, but does kind of make sense. EU elections do have a particularly low turnout, and if people themselves don’t care enough, then who will?

I think we can blame both and I think it's weird that you think we shouldn't.

With the EU it kind of is, lobbying is institutionally embedded under the guise of regulating it.

Being the group that first makes a move or at least moves early and sets the 'frame' usually has a massive influence on the outcome. Which is by design since the early EEC days.

See e.g. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A168... .

America has been funding right wing Christians for decades and guess what? Dutch people voted for a gay guy from a liberal party.

It is true that the US wants to destroy our way of life but we are not defenceless.

Qatargate, Mogherinigate, there is no shortage of palms wanting to be greased in Brussels.

They are just less blatant about it than Trump or Witkoff.