They are literally not the same. Bribing is when you try to give something in exchange for voting/law making etc. Lobbying is convincing why prioritising is important. These can be selfish reasons, like in this case. However, lobbying may also be done for noble causes by a wide range of NGOs. Prohibiting lobbying is limiting the opportunity for all kinds of actors to argue their cause.
The effect is very similar though. Ultimately, lobbying is most beneficial for interests that are entrenched and/or extremely wealthy. The only difference is the way that they approach it. Bribery is a very narrow means to supporting your cause, but lobbying is much more vague and difficult to define.
I agree that both their objective lies in changing regulation. Doesn’t mean that they are the same, however. Which OP stated. And I wouldn’t say it is the only difference, rather the difference between the two.
They are literally not the same. Lobbying is when you try to convince someone and influence their voting/law making etc. Bribing is paying to set the prioritising and define what is important. However, bribing may also be done for noble causes, prohibiting bribes is limiting the opportunity for all kinds of actors to ensure their cause isn’t deprioritized in a harmful way.
They’re literally the same, we just legalized using money to set the agenda and made a new word for it.
If there is proof that they have given millions of dollars, this will go to court, as that is illegal. Lobbying is not bribing as I pointed out in my initial reply. Lots of different groups and organisations use lobbying to make their concerns heard. Just because this is a case we don’t like, does not mean lobbying has no purpose.
the fact that lobbying, which literally is just bribing the government, is somehow legal all over the world is crazy to me.
They are literally not the same. Bribing is when you try to give something in exchange for voting/law making etc. Lobbying is convincing why prioritising is important. These can be selfish reasons, like in this case. However, lobbying may also be done for noble causes by a wide range of NGOs. Prohibiting lobbying is limiting the opportunity for all kinds of actors to argue their cause.
The effect is very similar though. Ultimately, lobbying is most beneficial for interests that are entrenched and/or extremely wealthy. The only difference is the way that they approach it. Bribery is a very narrow means to supporting your cause, but lobbying is much more vague and difficult to define.
I agree that both their objective lies in changing regulation. Doesn’t mean that they are the same, however. Which OP stated. And I wouldn’t say it is the only difference, rather the difference between the two.
They are literally not the same. Lobbying is when you try to convince someone and influence their voting/law making etc. Bribing is paying to set the prioritising and define what is important. However, bribing may also be done for noble causes, prohibiting bribes is limiting the opportunity for all kinds of actors to ensure their cause isn’t deprioritized in a harmful way.
They’re literally the same, we just legalized using money to set the agenda and made a new word for it.
how is giving them millions of dollars “convincing why prioritising is important”
If there is proof that they have given millions of dollars, this will go to court, as that is illegal. Lobbying is not bribing as I pointed out in my initial reply. Lots of different groups and organisations use lobbying to make their concerns heard. Just because this is a case we don’t like, does not mean lobbying has no purpose.