The most a single company spent on lobbying last year was Facebook at $19.7 million, which is a whopping .17% of their marketing expenses. At the same time, they shelled out $130 million, forming a irrevocable trust to fund a supreme court of moderation decisions. If lobbying were really effective, Facebook would have given money to any Congressperson willing to make any decisions at all, regardless of whether they are pro or anti-censorship. Either way, it's a win for Facebook because they can deflect all blame to the new regulations. The less Zuck has to think about moderation, the more he can focus on making money. The problem is that no representative was ever willing to do so. During the hearings about Section 230, Congress loved to grill Facebook on why they shouldn't have censored this and should censor this other thing. However, none of them attempted meaningful questioning that would aid them in writing a bill to achieve their supposed goals.
The real reason Congress is so ineffective is much more mundane: they have no incentive to do otherwise. Voters love hearing spicy soundbytes, so that's where all Congresspeople's effort goes into. People just want a simple problem that they can point their fingers at and knock down, but the real world doesn't work that way. When you blamed "lobbying", did you bother to look up the myriad existing regulations and their shortcomings? The result of all this is that an increasing number of real decisions are being made by unelected officials, from the SCOTUS effectively legislating Google v. Oracle or the Federal Reserve's increasingly aggressive monetary policy.
Almost 10 billion dollars was donated in the 2020 election cycle. The money overwhelmingly comes from a very small and well off portion of the population. This is why the positions taken by congress so consistently serve the interests of the few over the many.
Campaign finance is certainly broken, but it's not the same as lobbying. Also, most evidence points towards money having little if any impact on elections. Most recently, Bloomberg spent $570 million on primaries and only received 31 delegates.
The most a single company spent on lobbying last year was Facebook at $19.7 million, which is a whopping .17% of their marketing expenses.
In a thread about how a company used 50 shell companies to avoid millions in taxes it seems a little naive to suggest companies don't use similar tactics to fund lobbyists as well.
The shell companies are public information. How do you think researchers found them? Also, that implies that anyone bothers to look up lobbying spend in the first place, which clearly very few people do.
The most a single company spent on lobbying last year was Facebook at $19.7 million, which is a whopping .17% of their marketing expenses. At the same time, they shelled out $130 million, forming a irrevocable trust to fund a supreme court of moderation decisions. If lobbying were really effective, Facebook would have given money to any Congressperson willing to make any decisions at all, regardless of whether they are pro or anti-censorship. Either way, it's a win for Facebook because they can deflect all blame to the new regulations. The less Zuck has to think about moderation, the more he can focus on making money. The problem is that no representative was ever willing to do so. During the hearings about Section 230, Congress loved to grill Facebook on why they shouldn't have censored this and should censor this other thing. However, none of them attempted meaningful questioning that would aid them in writing a bill to achieve their supposed goals.
The real reason Congress is so ineffective is much more mundane: they have no incentive to do otherwise. Voters love hearing spicy soundbytes, so that's where all Congresspeople's effort goes into. People just want a simple problem that they can point their fingers at and knock down, but the real world doesn't work that way. When you blamed "lobbying", did you bother to look up the myriad existing regulations and their shortcomings? The result of all this is that an increasing number of real decisions are being made by unelected officials, from the SCOTUS effectively legislating Google v. Oracle or the Federal Reserve's increasingly aggressive monetary policy.