We all know that corruption is pretty severe in India. And it looks like the government is about to oblige us with an elegant solution – legalize it!
Many of us in India are new to formal lobbying – something which has existed in the US for years. The idea goes something like this. It’s illegal to use one’s money to buy a politicians vote or support for a certain action. But it’s legal to buy access to a politician. Meaning that you pay so that you can talk to them and get your views across. Now it’s possible I’m missing something here, but isn’t that pretty much the same thing? Won’t politicians support those people who will “buy” access to them?
I’ve often said that corruption exists at a very high level in the US. It’s not called corruption and it’s done openly in two ways – lobbying and campaign contributions. By law, every Senator in the US is required to disclose how much money they receive from corporate lobbying. These amounts are public knowledge and are often displayed openly.
During the BP oil spill, the US government wanted to raise the maximum liability of oil companies to $10 billion instead of the measly $75 million. An Alaskan senator blocked the motion giving a variety of reasons. But publicly declared figures show that she received $289,000 from the Oil & Gas sector as campaign contributions! This information isn’t hidden – it’s perfectly legal and out in the open.
Currently in India, such deals are shameful. When they’re performed, they’re done in secret. And for good reason. Lobbying and “campaign contributions” are nothing less than bribery. Legalize it and there’s no more shame in using money to dictate national policy. Vast sums of money will change hands openly and citizens will watch helplessly on the sidelines. The richer you are, the more power you legally have. Those supporting the legalization of lobbying have to explain how legalizing corruption can lower it.
It gets worse. In the US till last year, there was a limit to the amount of money corporations could spend to influence politicians. But the US Supreme Court in a shocking decision said that money was equal to speech and that freedom of speech meant that there could be no limit to how much money could be used to buy a politician’s support! Wonderful. So now a rich person has more freedom of speech than a poor one.
I know that the US is better than us in a lot of ways – mostly with regard to people being a lot more conscientious. But campaign contributions and lobbying is not one of them. Lobbying is corruption and campaign contributions are bribes, plain and simple. Legalizing them will benefit no one except for politicians and corporations. The country will merely suffer.
Well said dear friend.
More money, more freedom, hence the ‘rich’ would have more freedom than the ‘poor – I can’t agree more on this view of yours.
Very well written.
Very well written, I don’t like the idea of lobbying….seems like legalized bribery to me. O_O
I couldn’t agree more. It’s bad enough we tolerate such abominable behaviour here in the US, do everything you can to stop it.
Bhagwad
I think the solution to this problem is limited government and reduced powers. The reason corporations and other interest groups feel compelled to lobby the government is because their survival and prosperity depends largely on government policies. I think that’s unfair. Clearly, the corporations don’t willingly “donate” money to political campaigns and sundries. Given a chance, they would be the first ones to withdraw from this practice of lobbying.
In reply to Ashish Deodhar
Well Ashish, I think the government still has a role to play in regulating the corporate environment. In many ways – environmental regulations for example.
Of course, in India the government still has an unnaturally large role, but certainly not in the US which is probably the most capitalistic society in the world. And if lobbying takes place even in a place like the US where there are minimal regulations, it’s pretty obvious that it can happen anywhere unless the government is totally out of the corporate landscape which is impossible.
Yeah government will have some role to play but the lesser its role, the lesser scope for lobbying and corruption.
And I am not so sure about the size of government in the US. if anything, it’s growing by the day.
Most of your concerns are legitimate, but overall I think India would benefit from legalised lobbying. Although lobbying could be construed as a form of bribery, legal lobbying would at least be above ground and open to public view. Laws have not stopped bribery in India. I think I will not need examples to prove that.
A legal channel can help to bring these things to light. Then, we will know (or at least in principle, there will be a way to know) who paid whom. We should also adopt a transparent campaign contribution system like the US.
If we had a system like that, the political affiliation of people like Barkha Dutt would most likely
become known through campaign contributions. I think this could have helped the public calibrate her credibility accordingly. Also, if lobbying were legal, Barkha wouldn’t have dared to work for lobbyists like she is now widely believed to have done.
Your argument about rich people having more freedom of speech is not meaningful. Even if money were not considered speech, a rich person like Barkha Dutt is able to broadcast her views to the whole country but I am not (and again, as is widely believed now, capable of influencing other powerful mediapersons to blackout news that shows her in bad light). By your measure, Barkha Dutt already has “more freedom” than I do, whether money is considered speech or not.
Agree. This would make sure that decision making legally stays in old-boys’ (and now girls’) networks. Political pimps would be a better term to me but that’s not as nice and polished as ‘lobbyists’, is it? :-D
May be even the legalizing thought have been lobbied by someone. PM has lost his image of being honest and trustworthy. Wake up UPA before its too late.