57

Lobbying is trying to persuade decision makers to see a certain issue your way. Bribery is paying decision makers to do what you want. The difference is in the "persuading" part: a lobbyist wants to convince the decision maker to agree with them. Whereas when you bribe someone, you fully expect them to disagree with you, but still do what you want ...


47

My version of an answer for children in Jr. High: The first thing to know is every politician, like the Governor or a Senator, has a campaign fund that anyone can give money to. It costs at least 2 million dollars to run all of the TV ads and other stuff to win an election for congress, and just as much the next time, which means they're always trying to get ...


32

There was no official explanation given by the Trump administration in the new executive order that he signed to revoke the ethics executive order (13770), as noted by Politico. However, the Clinton administration had issued an executive order (13184) close to the end of his term revoking a similar ethics executive order (12834). There also did not appear to ...


7

As a disclaimer, this is just speculation on my part. But when politics are involved, every action should be looked at as a power play - either to gain power for the actor and their allies, or to take power from their enemies. As such, one possibility of the issuing of a "no appointees allowed to lobby" order could be to prevent appointees who ...


4

There are already limits on political contributions It is false to say that there is resistance to passing laws that limit political contributions, because there already are laws that limit political contributions. https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/contribution-limits/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/...


3

As someone who has been both a governmental auditor (and interested in bribery controls) and legislative staff, the difference largely comes down to the existence of a quid-pro-quo relationship. Lobbying usually doesn't involve any kind of monetary relationship, so in most circumstances the distinction is pretty clear. Child-appropriate Answers Suppose you ...


3

Depends on the country. In many countries lobbying and bribery are identical. Both are the corruption of processes through the input of money. For example paying to jump past a queue is bribery when it is immoral or illegal to do so. In the USA this type of corruption is legal. It exists because rich groups allow it to.


3

Arguably, lobbying becomes bribery when the lobbyist provides a service from which the politician (or civil servant) personally benefits (or by extension, their friends/family benefit, or others they owe a service benefit). This can be money, but it can also be the head teacher promising the police officer that her son will get a good grade if she forgets ...


3

They Are Not The Same - But They Do Intersect One Another Not all lobbying is bribery, despite what some off-the-cuff humorous remarks may lead you to believe. On the surface, lobbyists are simply trying to encourage lawmakers to vote in a certain direction based on the personal interests of the people they represent. But, some lobbying is bribery. And it ...


2

There are, generally speaking, several tax-status issues when non-profits cooperate, but the biggest one is control. The tax-exemptness of an organization depends on it staying within the permissible bounds of its classification. So, for example, neither 350.org (a Charitable Org), nor 350 Action (a Social Welfare Org), may contribute funds to a candidate's ...


1

Per Wikipedia: Politicians receive campaign contributions and other payoffs from powerful corporations, organizations or individuals in return for making choices in the interests of those parties, or in anticipation of favorable policy, also referred to as lobbying. This is not illegal in the United States and forms a major part of campaign finance, though ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible