• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

A Case for Lobbyists (1 Viewer)

SFLRN

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2006
Messages
1,008
Reaction score
95
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Yes a case can be made for lobbyists lol.

Lawyers, Politicians, and Lobbyists. If you put these people together they could easily qualify as the most hated professionals in America. However, if we did not have the politician to represent us in government, the lawyer to represent us in court we would certainly be at a disadvantage, our democracy could not possibly function. Lobbyists provide representation in a similar way, representing groups of people and presenting those views to our government. These groups are most often called interests groups, all members having a collective interest in certain policies. Lobbyists represent a variety of groups. But any way you. The first example will show how lobbyists benefitted the American workforce.
The 1st Amendment guarantees that anyone can say their piece without being violently silenced. It’s the kind of freedom that has allowed the extreme to the moderate to voice their opinion, and the kind of freedom that has ensured stability and opportunity for generations. Lobbyists, are an extension of this freedom to express. They help present the viewpoints of a group, whether it is a grassroots movement or something as large as a labor union, lobbyists help provide a voice for people with similar interests. It is just another way of helping connect the views of a group with legislators.

Lobbyists have helped benefit the American workforce
Lets look a bit back in history for the first example. During the “Progressive Era” there was a large labor movement. The movement hit a stumbling block when businessmen and even local government were preventing the formation of organized labor. To help enact change in this area labor organized and sent lobbyists to the Congress. In fact, “massive lobbying by the AFL and its members led to passage of the Clayton Act...This law allowed unions to organize free from prosecution and also guaranteed their right to strike, a powerful weapon against employers.”(American Government: Continuity and Change). Lobbyists help provide the labor movements viewpoint to legislators and as a result helped allow for the formation of unions, which helps provide a check to business power.

To sum it up we may not love lobbyists but, they do play a role in providing representation for a group of people with a similar set of interests, whether it be about worker rights or the like. Second, lobbyists are an extension of 1st Amendment guarantees on petitioning the government and free speech. Lastly, we have seen how lobbyists have helped push forward legislation that benefits our workforce By providing representation lobbyists simply provide another means of empowering groups of people, through peaceful and Constitutional methods.
 
Here is what will be said against lobbyists. Money. The fact that they are paid to do their job and as a result corruption trickles in. One would also hear that lobbyists put more money into the system and ultimately corrupt politics.
Firstly, it is true that groups with substanial resources do have greater access to lobbyists. But if lobbyists were more these groups would still have these resources and still use them towards political means. Means such as 527s to help certain candidates get elected. The rich and powerful would still have their connection to legislators with or without lobbyists.
Lets take this analogy, a rich man is tried for severe crimes, chances are she will hire a most excellent attorney. This attorney will most likely aid in her defense. While on the other hand the poor man who is stuck with a weaker attorney does not have that same advantage. But what if we did not have any lawyers at all, no one to represent us in court, well then no one would be better, it would hurt us all. In the same way the rich might be able to afford better lobbyists than the poor, but, if we had no lobbyists we would not have this path to the legislator to express the views of a group.
 
Few people argue that lawyers, lobbyists or politicians should be removed. However, many people agree that their behavior is reprehensible. Reforming the system might help mitigate these problems. Modifying campaign financing might help keep lobbyists from buying off politicians. Preventing lawyers from taking huge amounts of money in settlements might help prevent stupid lawsuits.
 
Few people argue that lawyers, lobbyists or politicians should be removed. However, many people agree that their behavior is reprehensible. Reforming the system might help mitigate these problems. Modifying campaign financing might help keep lobbyists from buying off politicians. Preventing lawyers from taking huge amounts of money in settlements might help prevent stupid lawsuits.

But if we did indeed regulate campaign finance would we not just shift money towards 527s (a form of advertising for a candidate that is independent of that candidate and not regulated)? Why put a cap on lawsuits, if there were a severe case then why not allow for a larger amount of money to be given? We would effectively undermine the judiciary's ability to effectively deal sentences if we do not allow for each situation to be considered case by case.
 
Why put a cap on lawsuits, if there were a severe case then why not allow for a larger amount of money to be given? We would effectively undermine the judiciary's ability to effectively deal sentences if we do not allow for each situation to be considered case by case.

I'm talking about reducing the amount of money that lawyers make from a settlement. Lawyers tend to sue for really stupid reasons if they think they can get 20% of a multi million dollar settlement.
 
I'm talking about reducing the amount of money that lawyers make from a settlement. Lawyers tend to sue for really stupid reasons if they think they can get 20% of a multi million dollar settlement.

So what is a reasonable level? Should they not be reimbursed for the literally tens of thousands of man-hours that can go into these large cases?
 
So what is a reasonable level? Should they not be reimbursed for the literally tens of thousands of man-hours that can go into these large cases?

I am directly mentioning the cases in which the lawyer is paid a percentage of the money won in a civil case. It creates a very large profit motive for really stupid cases. Restricting the amount of money lawyers can bleed from such cases would mean that things like "hot coffee" wouldn't exist.
 
I am directly mentioning the cases in which the lawyer is paid a percentage of the money won in a civil case. It creates a very large profit motive for really stupid cases. Restricting the amount of money lawyers can bleed from such cases would mean that things like "hot coffee" wouldn't exist.


But that's what I'm referring to. In those cases, the lawyers involved are literally spending tens of thousands of man-hours prosecuting these cases in the hope that they win. If they lose, they get nothing.
 
I'm talking about reducing the amount of money that lawyers make from a settlement. Lawyers tend to sue for really stupid reasons if they think they can get 20% of a multi million dollar settlement.

Firstly this amount is agreed upon by both parties, and even with that cap those who decide to sue would still get 80 percent, which still leaves a motive to sue.
Secondly, if we put a cap on how much these lawyers can receive we set a precedent, or simply further the trend of government regulation. After that is considered, lawyers will then just shift their payment options to more up-front payment. The more you regulate that percent the larger the up-front payment, it is merely shifting when the lawyer receives the money. The arrangement should be left to the two private parties rather than the government.
 
What are you talking about? Lawyers deal in a way that purely defined by the government. The fact that lawyers can even take a percentage of a settlement is something that is questionable itself. Does nobody else notice how lawyers have completely modified our legal system. It is filled with stupid lawsuits that make no sense whatsoever, but you still dozens of lawyers working on such cases trying to grab some of the cash.
 
What are you talking about? Lawyers deal in a way that purely defined by the government. The fact that lawyers can even take a percentage of a settlement is something that is questionable itself. Does nobody else notice how lawyers have completely modified our legal system. It is filled with stupid lawsuits that make no sense whatsoever, but you still dozens of lawyers working on such cases trying to grab some of the cash.

It is setting a precedent into a private contract on compensation, something that the government yes has done, but does not need to do in this case. It would shift around when these lawyers are paid.
What is questionable about it? They are being paid for services rendered. It is like receiving 20 dollars for a construction job except when it is paid after the job is done. It is a contract that both parties, the injured and the lawyer agree upon. Furthermore, like I said earlier, which has not been addressed, if we did eliminate this whole concept of getting paid for the settlement then you would simply shift the payment time to the very begginning. Lawyers would still be paid under this system and would merely receive their payment at a different time.
 
Quote
(if we did eliminate this whole concept of getting paid for the settlement then you would simply shift the payment time to the very begginning. Lawyers would still be paid under this system and would merely receive their payment at a different time.)

Not really, when a case is settled and a monetry amount is awarded the Lawyer takes his / her cut for services rendered.
The money for their service is available by virtue of the case having been won.
Whereas if the payment were to be an upfront payment, there is no guarantee that the money would be available to pay for the service, also the incentive for the Lawyer to win the case would no longer be there, as he / she would have already been paid.
 
Quote
Not really, when a case is settled and a monetry amount is awarded the Lawyer takes his / her cut for services rendered.
The money for their service is available by virtue of the case having been won.
Whereas if the payment were to be an upfront payment, there is no guarantee that the money would be available to pay for the service, also the incentive for the Lawyer to win the case would no longer be there, as he / she would have already been paid.

We are all quite aware of how lawyers are currently paid, that is the basis for this debate.
It is true they take their "cut". We are debating a system in which there would be a cap on that "cut" amount. The money for their services would have to be put out before the trial if there was a cap. Lawyers would still require the same amount of payment for their services. So they would have part of the payment paid earlier to help offset the lost wages they would have had under a larger cap.
Secondly, your point on a loss of incentives is somewhat moot. The lawyer would still have the incentive even with a cap because they would still take a certain percentage of the winnings in the case; the percentage would just be smaller. There would be somewhat of a loss of incentive; not enough to prevent a lawsuit. The lawyer would still receive upfront payment and some amount of a "cut."
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom