147
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by Varven@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Carighan@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

Keep in mind that the person you reply to isn't wrong: Big corpos would still be lobbying, as they got the resources to hide it effectively and keep everyone trying to sue them over suspicions of lobbying stuck in litigation hell.

Anybody less affluent would however find it impossible to do any lobby work. Environmental agencies etc.

This is one of those situations where just outlawing something does the least affect the very party you would want to hit most.

[-] 0stre4m@lemmy.wtf 1 points 3 months ago
[-] Carighan@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

That's a better approach I think, yes. It'll be difficult to prevent collusion but effectivey capping the size of most companies and maybe their across-border reach would be a good way to keep a tighter leash on them.

this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2024
147 points (96.2% liked)

Asklemmy

43895 readers
970 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS