To be precise, bribery isn't just legal, it's mandatory under the current campaign finance setup.

Campaign finance reform is a prerequisite for addressing any of the anti-consumer legislation we are stuck with today. Best of all, it hasn't been turned into a partisan wedge yet, so there's hope, assuming we can find a way to make people care.

Unfortunately, last time I saw a campaign finance reform proposal cross the HN frontpage, it fell off within 5 minutes :(

Campaign finance reform has always been a partisan wedge, insofar as the party that loses the most seats in a given election cycle is the one touting how much it's needed, but shuts up the next cycle when they gain the most seats. Thus, the only politicians willing to put money into that fight are either already outnumbered, or just crazy (or smart) enough to vote against their own future reelection.

> the only politicians willing to put money into that fight are either already outnumbered, or just crazy (or smart) enough to vote against their own future reelection

1. This division doesn't fall strictly on party lines, which was my point.

2. With a modicum of cleverness you can get around the immediate issue (politicians don't want to give their opponents a leg up in the next election) by engineering the changes to phase in one position at a time and "lock in place" only when beneficial to the incumbent (e.g. in a year when corporate support backs out for one reason or another).

Or, they actually believe they can get reelected in a system not based on bribery.

I laughed, but to be clear, of course that's not true.

and rather uninformed. lobbying may not be as efficient elsewhere as it is here, but it exists everywhere.

>but it exists everywhere

But it's not legal.

Lobbying is legal in the EU too. The organisation is one of the bigger employers in the EU. It's just not so known as in the US.

Lobbying <> bribery.

There's a difference between buying a politician diner and talking to them and writing a big fat check.

In theory that's right. But in practice the line that divides them is somewhat blurry.

Lobbyists was supposed to be experts in the field of whatever subject they are helping the politicians with. In practice they are experts in lobbying, nothing else. The salary comes from a company that has a certain interest and pays the lobbying organisation to get this result through the politicians. The bribery is not actually exchanging with the politician, it's with the lobying organisation. Bribery would have been more understanding, here it's just a question of stupidity sadly. The lobbying groups are confusedly just taking the money and wondering why it's so easy. There are a few documentaries on this subject and all the lobbyists are talking openly about what they do. The politicians not so.

Actually, it's conflicting interests either way.