Perhaps Apple (or Google or Microsoft or??) feels that legislators may not understand an issue and worry that it may not be handled/voted on in a way that satisfies their business goals. Maybe there's been what they feel is misleading articles or reporting and they want their side of the story to be considered. Maybe Apple might feel that un-elected regulators may be hindering their business plans and need access to and assistance from someone they feel might have the influence to speed things up.
Seems most companies hire insider lobbying firms with demonstrated records of talking to the right people to get things done. I'm sure those firms don't come cheap but for a company like Apple with perhaps billion to be made it's cheap to them.
This makes a lot of sense. As an earlier poster noted, though, I see how it can be abused.
So is lobbying mainly just spreading awareness of certain products/ideologies into congress? I understand there is a difference between lobbying and literal bribery (not that I'm going to play naive and pretend bribery doesn't exist inside of congress anyways). I just don't understand the reasoning behind it. People in congress are able to think for themselves so why the need for someone from Apple to come in and sway people in a certain direction? Unless I'm just looking at it from a 50,000 feet view.
People in Congress are able to think for themselves??? I think not. A great many of them are blubbering idiots.
Even in cases where companies only "lobby" in the literal sense of the word and make absolutely no campaign contributions whatsoever, you listen to the people around you plus the people who are most active in getting you past a primary ("the base"). Because members of Congress primarily have only lobbyists around them, that's who they listen to.
And then when you add money to the equation, it becomes much more compelling for them to support legislation that helps those companies. Now I'm sure that many members of Congress truly believe that when they help these companies, they're also helping the citizens of their State, via jobs and investment, etc. But just as too many CEOs don't look past the next quarter and their annual bonus and/or stock price on their options, too many politicians don't look past the next election. It's also so expensive to run for office these days that even after being elected, they essentially start raising money again from the first day they're in office.
Unfortunately, we can't ban lobbyists because everyone is entitled to meet with their representatives in Congress, but it would go a long way to changing this country for the better if we could get big money out of the election process.
As far as Apple is concerned, I don't think they should or need to play this repulsive game. I think they should take the high road and spend as little money as possible on lobbying.
"Validify" is not a real word. It's a made-up word for someone confused with the differences between "validate" and "verify". I hope you're not using Urban Dictionary for your definitions.
I moved to the USA 25 years ago and have had to learn that here it is OK to make up words.
Comments
Ah, thank you sir.
That was a better catch than Lindsay Lohan's STD's.
This makes a lot of sense. As an earlier poster noted, though, I see how it can be abused.
So is lobbying mainly just spreading awareness of certain products/ideologies into congress? I understand there is a difference between lobbying and literal bribery (not that I'm going to play naive and pretend bribery doesn't exist inside of congress anyways). I just don't understand the reasoning behind it. People in congress are able to think for themselves so why the need for someone from Apple to come in and sway people in a certain direction? Unless I'm just looking at it from a 50,000 feet view.
People in Congress are able to think for themselves??? I think not. A great many of them are blubbering idiots.
Even in cases where companies only "lobby" in the literal sense of the word and make absolutely no campaign contributions whatsoever, you listen to the people around you plus the people who are most active in getting you past a primary ("the base"). Because members of Congress primarily have only lobbyists around them, that's who they listen to.
And then when you add money to the equation, it becomes much more compelling for them to support legislation that helps those companies. Now I'm sure that many members of Congress truly believe that when they help these companies, they're also helping the citizens of their State, via jobs and investment, etc. But just as too many CEOs don't look past the next quarter and their annual bonus and/or stock price on their options, too many politicians don't look past the next election. It's also so expensive to run for office these days that even after being elected, they essentially start raising money again from the first day they're in office.
Unfortunately, we can't ban lobbyists because everyone is entitled to meet with their representatives in Congress, but it would go a long way to changing this country for the better if we could get big money out of the election process.
As far as Apple is concerned, I don't think they should or need to play this repulsive game. I think they should take the high road and spend as little money as possible on lobbying.
You people really make me laugh. Oh well.
I moved to the USA 25 years ago and have had to learn that here it is OK to make up words.
Aren't they are made up?
Edit: if enough people use 'validify' on a consistent basis it'll get added to the dictionary.
Exactamundo!
I'm not quite as eager to live in the film world of Idiocracy.
The Idiocrazy world of AI is enough for you?