Lobbying sentences to ponder

Specifically, corporations lobby more, and harder, as legislatures polarize, but they do so primarily in response to rising liberalism among Democrats.

Here is the full paper by William Massengill, via Matt Grossman.


Dems always make everything expensive. Crony capitalism was so much cheaper when Clinton Democrats were a thing.

Two publicly-traded corporations, actually controlled by the deep state - US HUD - FHLMC and FNMA spent $200 million on lobbying in the years prior to the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis and 2008 financial catastrophe.

See Lisa Lerer, Politico, July 16, 2008.

Lead was the cheapest gasoline additive, right?

Who got rid of it? (house vote and senate. Nixon signed it though, good on him!)

That's the whole problem with this "liberals" framing, like "environmental lead is a conservative value."

Did the Clean Air Act have anything to do with lead? Did they know about the effect of lead at the time?

In answer to question one, yes, but the main motivating factor was the catalytic converters.

On the second question, lead in gasoline was almost nipped in the bud, in the 1920s.

The problem, at that point, was that no one knew exactly why. Oh, they knew – or should have known – that tetraethyl lead was dangerous. As Charles Norris, chief medical examiner for New York City pointed out, the compound had been banned in Europe for years due to its toxic nature. But while U.S. corporations hurried TEL into production in the 1920s, they did not hurry to understand its medical or environmental effects.

I believe Norris got lead gas banned briefly in NY or NJ before it was overturned.

It's an interesting approach to say "yes" and then provide a link that clearly says "no"


TEL levels automotive fuel were reduced in the 1970s under the U.S. Clean Air Act in two overlapping programs: to protect catalytic converters, which mandated unleaded gasoline for those vehicles; and to protect public health, which mandated lead reductions in annual phases (the "lead phasedown").

This is why comment sections are shit.

No, this is why you are shit. The 1970's is many years after the Clean Air Act was passed, so the Clean Air Act passing was not because of lead. You disingenuously try to make it sound like Republicans voted against removing lead from gasoline.

Buddy, the thing you have to realize is that many of us here, including the hosts, were driving in the 1970s, and REMEMBER the introduction of lead-free gas, and those catalytic converters.

Comments are amazing.

My first comment was a reply to your link #1. Link #2 says this:

"In January 1926, the public health service released its report which concluded that there was “no danger” posed by adding TEL to gasoline…”no reason to prohibit the sale of leaded gasoline” as long as workers were well protected during the manufacturing process.


There was one cautionary note, though. The federal panel warned that exposure levels would probably rise as more people took to the roads. Perhaps, at a later point, the scientists suggested, the research should be taken up again. It was always possible that leaded gasoline might “constitute a menace to the general public after prolonged use or other conditions not foreseen at this time.”


It was some fifty years later – in 1986 – that the United States formally banned lead as a gasoline additive"

Do you think it is at all possible that "no danger" was the result of .. LOBBYING?

Desperately trying to change the subject?

There is a nice documentary on Charles Norris and his groundbreaking work. In it, we learn that Standard Oil opposed it, and lobbied for the introduction of leaded gasoline over his objections.

This is exactly where I started.

Here is that documentary.

And there's more:

Worry started to spread of what the lead, which escaped from tail pipes, might mean for the public. New Jersey and Philadelphia banned the sale of gasoline with TEL. But industry fought back, claiming the problems with lead could be controlled at the factory level. Small government advocate President [Republican] Calvin Coolidge backed the companies’ position rather than impose a national ban. It took another 60 years for scientists to convince the EPA to ban leaded gasoline after it became clear that lead from those tailpipes had spread lead dust from sea to shining sea.

In other words, more bad faith deception on your part- EXPOSED

Seriously, the crap we deal with.

Maybe "TEL" was too hard an acronym for you?

Maybe you're a retard?

Or maybe I know what I'm talking about:

This article assesses the evidence for the hypothesis that a decline in all types of crime since the early 1990s in the USA was a consequence of removing lead from petrol between 1975 and 1985.


Again, comments are amazing.

Another quote from that:

"two major acts of government, the Clean Air Act and Roe v Wade, neither intended to have any effect on crime, may have been the largest factors affecting violent crime trends at the turn of the century"

With Dems, you have to really start from square 1 to explain to them the negative effects of what they are proposing, because they don't understand economics. It costs a lot of money to teach a freshman congressman what supply and demand are, even if she does have a "degree" in economics.

It all makes sense when you assume that the left's motivation is to take control, not to foster economic growth or prosperity. They hate free market capitalism because it isn't susceptible to coercion/control//force.

Plus, it doesn't matter that they do damage, they think (delusion) that they had "good" intentions.

Good. Let's make lobbying cost more. Put an NBA-style luxury tax on all these PACs. If you're going to sell out my country, then pay through the nose to do it.

They already run elections NBA-style. That's why a northerly country who paid to play was allowed to win the most recent big contest.

I can't determine which is the greater hoax. Climate change, Russia collusion, or "What About The Children!"

....that the climate is NOT changing? That the changing climate being reported is actually a hoax and no changes are happening?

PACs are not corporate lobbyists are they?

Isn't this completely obvious and expected? If corporations think its more likely that legislatures pass regulatory legislation they will increase their efforts to stop it/co-opt it.

'zactly, and the study is useless without factoring in campaign contributions. Which is simply lobbying by another name.

Ran an search on the thesis, neither liberalism or Democratic liberalism are defined anywhere. I'd expect this issue (everyone knows what a liberal is) on a blog post, but not on a doctoral dissertation.

So, what is Democratic liberalism?

Clearly, democratic liberalism is the first stage of the affliction that leads to democratic socialism.

Preferable to Republican Fascism

Dems got fascism all locked up too.

oh yeah for sure: right wing, highly nationalist, militaristic, overtly patriotic, closely aligned business and military. Everyone thinks Dem when they think that.

Left wing authoritarians - yes

'but they do so primarily in response to rising liberalism among Democrats'

Oh please - AEI and Heritage are fine examples of lobby groups who are well supported by corporations while working effortlessly regardless of who is power - reducing any and all regulation and lowering any impediments to increasing corporate profits require constant lobbying regardless of who is elected.

Just ask ExxonMobil how that works - their support for various lobby groups and lobbyists seems quite consistent over decades.

What on earth means liberalism here? Economic liberalism? Social liberalism? Current sectarian anti-male and anti-white movements? I think scientific discourse shouldn't absorb the leftist language.

I made a search on the thesis PDF and liberalism is not defined. It's damned hard to measure a thing that has not been defined. So, no idea how this works.

"I will measure legislator ideology with widely used statistical estimates of legislator ideology (Shor and McCarty, 2011; Shor, 2014)." (p. 22 of the dissertation) This link has both items cited and more: http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/26799.

Aha, the search term was ideology not liberalism.

The legislator ideology is measured with a survey answered by candidates:

"The questions asked by Project Vote Smart cover a wide range of policy issues, including foreign policy, national security, international affairs, social issues, fiscal policy, environmentalism, criminal justice, and many more."

I assume a conservative from 10 years ago is still considered a conservative today, in spite of opinion change about free trade. Thus, this survey should represent the legislators ideology more or less well.

I won't look into the survey, I'll just assume they successfully identified liberals from conservatives.

@Axa "It's damned hard to measure a thing that has not been defined. So, no idea how this works."

... vague verbose language and fake measurements are a mainstay of social science academic culture.
You will never get a Political Science PhD with your skeptical attitude.

Democrats luv deceptive euphemisms about their true ideology:

democratic liberalism = Progressivism = Socialism = Collectivism = Oligarchy = Tyranny

As white Christians' share of the population falls, corporations lobby more and harder in order to maintain control. And it isn't just to control the legislation coming out of Congress, but working with the white Christians' political party (the Republican Party) to maintain control since white Christians are a minority of the voting age population but a majority of the voting population: while white Christians only comprised 43 percent of the population in 2016, they constituted an estimated 55 percent of voters. According to current projections, 2024 will be the year that white Christians—already less than half the population—will be a minority in the electorate as well. Between now and then, Republicans and their corporate sponsors will need to redouble their efforts to suppress non-white Christian voting if they want to maintain control.

Why do you hate white Christians?

Why do you hate anyone, for that matter?

....more or less than you hate "liberals/Democrats/progressives"?

This is parody, right? Even rayward can't possibly believe that corporate America has a Christian agenda.

Either he is just a troll or he imbibes and just starts typing.

No but the corporate owners and executives, with limited exceptions, do.

And the exceptions are even more limited if you add judeo-...

Real-world anecdote (and I have not read the paper, so am not directly commenting on it). I know quite well a national lobbying organization, which does not operate on the state level, but monitors state-level legislation in its field (it's a retail industry where most participants are local businesses, not chains). They report these observations:

1. the hardest thing about state-level lobbying is that you are continuously having to bring the new crop of first-time members up to speed (no need to shed a tear for the poor lobbyists, this is their job, but I thought it was interesting that they would say that more than half of their efforts are spent on this)
2. Democrats and Republicans have sort of switched roles in the state legislature. In the past Ds were reliably oriented to protecting the customer from Evil Business, and Rs were reliably oriented to protecting the Stalwart Businessman (sic). But more often now we see Ds, terrified that Big Evil Chains are gutting local businesses, have switched to protecting the SB (probably now Businessperson). Meanwhile the Rs have become more libertarian, and ask why any business needs any defense against anything, let the market sort it all out.

Again, no comment from me as to whether these businesses deserve protection or not, or whether consumers deserve protection from them or not, or whether the Deep State or the Illuminati are involved, etc. etc. Just noting that at the statehouse level, in this case at least, the "traditional" roles of Ds and Rs seem to have switched...

Of course the putative R's claim is nonsense. They are not actually saying let the businesses sort it out, they are saying leave the preferences in place that favor big business.

Progressives are causing the problem they hate (money in politics).

Perhaps they should rethink their policies

Comments for this post are closed