Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

I was discussing in another topic with someone else and this idea of outlawing in-camera lobbying came up. I heard this before in another discussion outside of this forum and I am curious to learn about it.

Can someone explain the specifics of In-camera lobbying and why it should stay legal or not ?

Edited by Independent1986
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Independent1986 said:

I was discussing in another topic with someone else and this idea of outlawing in-camera lobbying came up. I heard this before in another discussion outside of this forum and I am curious to learn about it.

Can someone explain the specifics of In-camera lobbying and why it should stay legal or not ?

You were discussing it with me.  Going in-camera is appropriate in the case of a something like a municipal council publicly questioned on the hygiene habits of a municipal employee, clearly this is not appropriate for public discussion because it will very likely involve privacy issues surrounding the employee. Going in-camera however to discuss some aspect of a mining company or other developer's impact on a watershed that people depend on for fresh water isn't appropriate especially if the developer has been allowed to go 'in-camera' with lawmakers privately or more to the point secretly. Lawmakers taking a public interest even deeper in-camera along with whatever else wasn't discussed in public just takes the whole process even farther over the top. I'm sure there are plenty of posters who can point to consequences of faulty decisions due to improper influence of lawmakers where they live. I've provided the example in fisheries management many times.  More fish are caught or killed behind closed doors than anywhere else which probably explains why there are so few left.

Consider the in-camera lobbying that occurs at the highest sometimes most consequential levels of government and that its happening all over the world and yeah, humanity has a big problem.    

The main argument against in-camera discussions of public domain issues seems to be that the public can't handle the sort of frank discussions that might trigger them to which I reply,

Facepalm GIFs - Get the best GIF on GIPHY  

Edited by eyeball
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, eyeball said:

You were discussing it with me.  Going in-camera is appropriate in the case of a something like a municipal council publicly questioned on the hygiene habits of a municipal employee, clearly this is not appropriate for public discussion because it will very likely involve privacy issues surrounding the employee. Going in-camera however to discuss some aspect of a mining company or other developer's impact on a watershed that people depend on for fresh water isn't appropriate especially if the developer has been allowed to go 'in-camera' with lawmakers privately or more to the point secretly. Lawmakers taking a public interest even deeper in-camera along with whatever else wasn't discussed in public just takes the whole process even farther over the top. I'm sure there are plenty of posters who can point to consequences of faulty decisions due to improper influence of lawmakers where they live. I've provided the example in fisheries management many times.  More fish are caught or killed behind closed doors than anywhere else which probably explains why there are so few left.

Consider the in-camera lobbying that occurs at the highest sometimes most consequential levels of government and that its happening all over the world and yeah, humanity has a big problem.    

The main argument against in-camera discussions of public domain issues seems to be that the public can't handle the sort of frank discussions that might trigger them to which I reply,

Facepalm GIFs - Get the best GIF on GIPHY  

So basically whoever has the money can go in private with a politician to try to influence him in regards to an issue, more like a legal bribery. I am sure there is vetting before someone gets approved as lobbying group no ? This is one issue that I'll admit I don't know anything about.

I knew the lobbying groups in USA are very strong, I recall Obama was too afraid to take on the NRA because he knew politically he would lose on the next elections, I was not aware that in Canada the lobbying groups are as active.

There has to be another argument from the other side, maybe a legal reason why this is not for public access ? 

Edited by Independent1986
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Independent1986 said:

So basically whoever has the money can go in private with a politician to try to influence him in regards to an issue, more like a legal bribery.

Good grief, is that really what you took away from what I wrote?  I just said the exact opposite. What you just said is what outlawing would prevent or at least allow us see the act of bribery taking place.

Quote

In camera is a legal term that means in private. The same meaning is sometimes expressed in the English equivalent: in chambers. Generally, in-camera describes court cases, parts of it, or process where the public and press are not allowed to observe the procedure or process. Wikipedia

 

Edited by eyeball
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Good grief, is that really what you took away from what I wrote?  I just said the exact opposite. What you just said is what outlawing would prevent or at least allow us see the act of bribery taking place.

 

That's what I meant, I support outlawing as well, I was just being ironic with "legal bribery" term and the vetting part. It is also the danger for certain lobbying groups to be foreign influenced. 

Edited by Independent1986
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Independent1986 said:

That's what I meant, I support outlawing as well, I was just being ironic with "legal bribery" term and the vetting part. It is also the danger for certain lobbying groups to be foreign influenced. 

 

Many government entities already have meeting sunshine rules, if not for lobbyist meetings, then at least for hearings and resulting decisions.    Canada's government and businesses also have many paid lobbyists in other nations to affect laws and policies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...