I've had discussions about making PAID lobbying illegal with a few people and the consensus I receive back is, "It's a form of free speech. They're protected by the first amendment"
I don't understand why PAID lobbying is considered free speech, or how it could be protected by the 1st amendment.
Let's have a look at the text of the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
emphasis added
Notice there is an explicitly enumerated right to petition the Government. This is what lobbyists do -- they petition the Government for changes in the law. Political speech aimed at politicians is how you ask the government to change.
The Supreme Court has also held, in the much maligned Citizens United case, that lobbying is a form of political speech. At its heart, lobbying is talking to politicians about politics. "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."
It's important to understand what the Citizens United case was actually about. Citizens United wanted to air a film about Hillary Clinton around the time of the Democratic primary election in which she was running. Federal law purported to consider this electioneering and prohibited it. That is, in the United States, the Federal Election Commission was claiming that it was illegal to show a film critical of Hillary Clinton because she was running for office. Think about that for a minute.
How isn't it?
What do you think lobbying is?
I go to a politician and tell them that I want such and such a policy. If they don't vote my way, I won't vote for them the next time they run.
Maybe that's not lobbying in your mind. Perhaps you only want paid lobbying. So I own some stock. Those companies can pay lobbyists. Those lobbyists then contact politicians to advocate for policies that favor that company. How do they do that? By talking to the politicians. And if talking is not free speech, then what is?
Perhaps it's the payment that is problematic. So let's assume that we ban paid lobbying. I am paid by my employer. If I advocate for a position on my free time, am I breaking the law? It seems obviously no if I'm lobbying for something unrelated to my employer. But what if I work for Tesla and am advocating for subsidies for electric cars?
If my official title is website developer, is it all right for me to lobby the government? When does it become illegal then? What if we hire Paul Manafort as a website developer? Can he then lobby?
How about a CEO? Or a director of marketing?
What if I work for another company that does work for Tesla? Can I be director of marketing for another company and advocate for Tesla?
Either you are preventing me from sharing my opinion with the government, even though I'm not what any reasonable person would consider a lobbyist. Or you are allowing Paul Manafort to lobby, as a "website developer" working for a contractor providing services to a company.
How is this not a free speech issue?
Maybe you would be happy with some really complicated set of rules that bans Paul Manafort but not me. But it's still going to be a free speech issue in the same way that yelling fire in a crowded theater is a free speech issue. It may not win as free speech. But it will still be criticized on the basis of violating it.
Because the only difference between paid lobbying and unpaid lobbying is that you're hiring a professional to do a better job of lobbying than you can do yourself (hopefully).
In other words, It is 100% same as hiring a lawyer to do legal work for you instead of doing it yourself; or hiring a speechwriter to make a better speech.
As such, paid lobbying is or isn't as much free speech as unpaid lobbying (whether either one is or isn't free speech is a separate question, but the way your phrased your post seems to indicate you consider unpaid lobbying free speech without reservations).
Now, you may quibble that specific activities being engaged in during paid lobbying are Not Good (e.g. offering to write pieces of legislation, or offering what seems like quid pro quo). Which may or may not be a correct view; but has very little to do with whether the lobbying person engaging in them was the interested party themselves, or a professional hired and paid to represent said interested party.
It's a form of free speech. They're protected by the first amendment
This is a relatively recent ruling by the Supreme Court in 2010; until then, there was a federal ban on corporate expenditure dating back to the 1907 Tillman Act. The Citizens United ruling in 2010 overturned that citing the First Amendment on free speech; however it's important to note that the ruling was close and controversial, with 5 for and 4 against.
Justice Stevens read part of his 90 page dissent from the bench, arguing that the ruling
threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution." He added: "A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold
He also argued that Legal entities were not "We the People" for whom the Constitution was established; and hence, they should not be given speech protections under the First Amendment which protects individual self-expression, self-realization and the communication of ideas and that corporate spending was the "furthest from the core of political expression" protected by the Constitution, and such spending on politics should be viewed as a business transaction designed by the officers or the boards of directors for no purpose other than profit-making.
He attacked the majority's central argument, that the ruling would guard free speech and allow the public to receive all available information, arguing that corporations "unfairly influence" the electoral process with vast sums of money that few individuals can match, which distorted the public debate by outspending others, and by pushing others out of prime broadcasting spots come to dominate the "marketplace of ideas". This process, he argued, puts disproportionate focus on this speech and gives the impression of widespread support regardless of actual support. Thus, this process marginalizes the speech of other individuals and groups.
If one wants to be exact, lobbying is not free speech. It costs an arm and a leg to hire an influential lobbyist.
Lobbyists facilitate groups of citizens making their voices heard to politicians, or at least that's what the SC indicated in their Citizens United decision. In reality, it also facilitates corporations or very wealthy people making their desires known, but you can't really restrict the one form of lobbying, without also restricting the other.
In general, lobbyists are people who stay in touch with politicians, and know how to make the most out of the limited time they can get with politicians. They are pros at getting a message conveyed. It is still up to the politician to put whatever message the lobbyist delivers in the context of what best benefits their constituents.
How well politicians do that, is a matter of opinion.
