David Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> side issue, lobbyists win because they spend time and energy in
> preparing cases and actionable proposals not because hey shoot up
> everything. (most of the time the money they may cause to get
> contributed is secondary to this careful spade work)
But lobbyists that are backed by huge corporations have a much better
chance at influencing legislation. They're much better financed, and
the corporations are providing a clear mandate for their work. While
there might be internal disputes over some of the outcomes, the
corporations are often willing to put aside their differences,
particularly if they perceive that failure to do so may impact them
financially.
Activist groups tend to be poorly financed (in comparison to huge
corporations). Also, many of the volunteers have regular jobs and/or
other commitments they must attend to. Thus they have much less
likelihood of impacting legislation than the lobbyists of huge
corporations. However, they can have some impact if they have some
angels in government (or who government listens to). Ralph Nader
might be an example of a netizen's angel.
I read a similar argument in a book (I forget the title) that
describes the problems the Pacifica radio network was having staying
afloat during the early 1980s.
I should also point out that at least in the US, the current trend of
laissez-faire regulatory policy strongly favors big business.
--gregbo
