u/Biggrigg1980

My orig.\\nInal tried to post about this subject got deleted , so i'm going to try again. Forgive grammatical errors.I'm using talk to text.

I just had a argument with chat GPT like, I do every now and then.When I drink ears by myself. His main argument is that we should not do away with lobbyists, because it would be hard to do.And it would invite other forms of influence.

After a very frustrating argument , I could not get a legitimate reason on why we shouldnt do away with it just because it is morally wrong. Does anyone have an argument on why rich people and corporations should have the most influence to deregulate? Or to ceate laws in the first place? Chat g p t's biggest answer is that it would fix one problem and create a vacuum where influence would come from other places. My answer was that we should start somewhere. Fix one problem at a time and vote on new ones as they come up. Our government greatest strength lies in the fact that the writers of the contest constitution and founding fathers main goal was the greatest system that could be changed on the fly. That's the best part about our government is that when it's working correctly, we can vote on and address new problems as they arrive, people forget that the amendments are amendments, people forget what the word amendments mean they mean a change, and there is a method to add or subtract and change existing once that is the only Protection against their main argument.

It's stupid to say we shouldn't change the laws on lobbyists because it would create new problems period\\nI'm hoping to find someone that could present a logical argument against me. Specifically , can anyone morally argue that lobbyists are morally correct?

The core problem with lobbying isn’t just that it influences policy — it’s that it institutionalizes unequal moral standing in a system that claims political equality.

In a democracy, the moral premise is that each person’s voice should carry roughly equal weight in shaping collective decisions. Lobbying breaks that premise in practice. It converts wealth, organization, and access into political amplification, meaning some interests are not just louder — they are structurally more heard before decisions are even formed.

That creates a moral distortion in three key ways:

Unequal personhood in practice: Even if laws treat citizens equally on paper, lobbying ensures that some citizens’ preferences are consistently translated into policy more effectively than others. That undermines the moral claim of equal political agency.

Pre-selection of policy outcomes: When well-funded interests shape legislation before public input meaningfully enters, the democratic process becomes reactive rather than genuinely participatory. Citizens are often choosing between options already filtered by private influence.

Normalization of asymmetric power: Over time, the system stops being perceived as unfair because inequality is embedded into procedure, not just outcomes. That makes the moral problem harder to see, even though it persists.

From a moral standpoint, the issue isn’t simply corruption or bad actors. It’s that the structure rewards the conversion of private resources into public authority. That creates a built-in tension with democratic legitimacy, because influence is no longer primarily tied to citizenship, but to capacity to fund access.

In that sense, lobbying isn’t just a flaw in the system — it’s a mechanism that can quietly erode the ethical foundation of political equality while still operating within legal boundaries. Why is it not talked about that this is a institutional method of the rich and corporations to make laws to increase profits and horde wealth at the expense of everyone else?

Do you get a notification that you're post has been rejected?And if so , do they tell you why