Can the lobbying system in US politics be fixed?

Yes (Louis Parous):

Lobbying is a valid functional platform for private and public interest to present complex issues to elected

officials, which have limited channels to their constituents. Elected officials have limited channels to their

constituents that have the bandwidth to handle complex issues, i.e. town halls, meetings in congressional

offices, phone calls, are not enough to handle in depth on subjects the officials are not fully aware. At its

core, lobbying is a method to educate elected representatives on important issues to their constituents.

While there is nothing inherently wrong with lobbying, a valid common sentiment is that even though the

system is regulated, it is still unfairly biased towards corporate interests and deep pockets which seek

unfair influence with politicians.

Lobbying, however, does not have to be biased and can fairly allow competing interests to influence and

educate policy makers. The system should be adapted to serve both rich and poor voices. One way would

be for regulation to require equal time for politicians to give to business and private interest groups.

Another would be for lobbyist organizations to be required to represent both sides of a given interest or

topic. Lastly, lobbyist should be prohibited from writing or providing suggestions for laws for lawmakers,

which happens under the guise that the lobbyist represent public interest.

Lobbying can serve the public interest in raising elected representative’s awareness of important topics

and giving a collective voice to private interest that are limited in their access to public officials by their

own checkbook.

No (Ivan Young):

If we lend any credence to Abraham Lincoln’s declaration of our government as “for the people, by the

people,” then the lobbying system in America offers no hope of being reformed. Politicians begin their

careers by being heavily funded by the special interests who can most afford large campaign

contributions (and money talks when it comes to being elected). Their careers under the influence of

the same special interests, so much so that the New York Times reported in one case that “Citigroup’s

recommendations were reflected in more than 70 lines of the House committee’s 85-line bill. Two

crucial paragraphs, prepared by Citigroup in conjunction with other Wall Street banks, were copied

nearly word for word.” Even at the end of politicians’ careers, they may well be offered lucrative deals

lobbying for the same special interests. For example, according to The Nation, “Former Congressman

Billy Tauzin (R-LA) made $19,359,927 as a lobbyist for pharmaceutical companies between 2006 and

2010.” And the most powerful lobbies come from corporations whose aims are often in direct

contradiction to the those of the people. Consider, for example, the issue of gun control where

politicians influenced by the gun lobby continue to refuse to legislate stricter controls even though NPR

recently reports “A Pew Research Center survey conducted in September found that 60% of Americans

say gun laws should be tougher.” Attempts to regulate lobbying have thus far done little to stem the

flow of money from corporate coffers to political pockets. Greed finds a way.

https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/banks-lobbyists-help-in-drafting-financial-bills/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/04/16/what-we-get-wrong-about-

lobbying-and-corruption/

https://represent.us/action/is-lobbying-good-or-bad/

https://www.thenation.com/article/when-congressman-becomes-lobbyist-he-gets-1452-percent-raise-

average/

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/20/771278167/poll-number-of-americans-who-favor-stricter-gun-laws-

continues-to-grow