But others don't lack those means. Others always have financial resources and political connections, even if you banned lobbying. Of all the ways people can influence policy, this is the legal one. The other methods are not nearly as civilized.

Also, just to be clear, is the Teachers Union an embarrassment to democracy? Auto workers? Environmental groups? Or are there some forms of lobbying you're okay with as long as your ox isn't gored?

if we define anything in a way we want to define it to get the meaning we want then it ends up meaning what we want it to, however corruption in most definitions that I am aware of includes some sort of benefit to those making a political decision for the results of that political decision.

If we accepted your definition then it should follow that if you have political connections then you cannot influence policy without being corrupt, which seems weird because having political connections probably indicates political interest or knowledge of the issues.

Now you may feel that is an unfair description, that one can influence policy to the same extent as those without political connections and thus not be corrupt, but the problem with that is if you have political connections they will probably hear about your attempts and they will be influenced through that connection no matter what you try, not to mention that often your political connections are exactly the people that should be talked to, and in this way we see that people with political connections must be locked out of the process by your definition if we want to fight corruption.

Locking people out of the process seems as problematic as being corrupt, but luckily I follow the model of there has to be some personal benefit involved with the corruption so I don't need to argue for locking anyone out.

I'm not sure what you mean by financial, for example financial resources to affect a decision often includes advertising on the issue. I agree this can make things unfair, because someone with a lot of money can buy more ads than someone without.

In that case one could put funding limits on political ads, but so many issues are not directly political but still you can move the emotions of the public on them via advertising that it does not seem possible to really control. Maybe it should be attempted.

That said, although I believe it will invariably be unfair, unfair and corrupt are not synonymous.

> If we define lobbying as using your financial resources and/or political connections (which others lack) to successfully influence policy

This definition is sloppy. If I buy a tacky "In this house..." sign and place it in my yard, I am using my financial resources to influence policy. Restricting that by law would be a disaster.

I think a better point could be made about the relationship BETWEEN financial resources and political connections. We should seek policies that limit the extent to which financial resources can easily buy political connections. This can be done by placing restrictions on public servants instead of restrictions on the public.

Of course, you're never going to totally remove the connection without totally destroying freedom of association.

Businesses should be able to communicate with policy makers especially when it impacts their industry.

In other words who would you trust to create a sensible encryption policy, Google executives or Chuck Schumer?

I know who I would pick

So... the Red Cross using their financial resources and/or political connections (which others lack) to successfully influence policy is committing to corruption?

Would you rather take advice from a friend or from a random person?

It's not "corruption" if it's the way it should be done. Corruption would imply some sort of nefarious means.

lol it’s this and can only be this

Lobbying is the right to petition the government. What you need is a countervailing powers to limit regulatory failure of institutional capture.

Just like the original post, make a definition that mistakes a pathology of the system for its core function (also: structural inequality is not corruption).

If you are a purist and eliminate all resource-backed influence by banning pooling money, hiring researchers, and organizing campaigns to influence lawmakers because "others lack those resources," you effectively ban organized labour unions, consumer watchdogs, civil liberties organizations. A well-organized national labor union has more leverage than a non-unionized gig worker in the EU. Asymmetry an inequity issue, not corruption. Well organized will trump over those who are not.

Corporations should be able to lobby, but they their lobbying should be limited more heavily.