[danielhughes]

I've often read headlines noting that the tax-prep lobby spends huge sums to preserve the status quo. But the numbers quoted in the article as evidence don't appear to support that claim. $6.6m seems low relative to these figures https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2018&inde... *

*I can't vouch for this site or its data

Relevant quote from the Tech Crunch article: "One reason why folks Congress could be pushing this through is all of the money that H&R Block and Intuit spent to lobby Senators and Representatives. ProPublica estimates that the tax prep industry has spent $6.6 million to advocate for the IRS filing deal. The Ways and Means chair, Neal, received $16,000 in contributions from the two companies in the last two election cycles, according to the ProPublica report."

[DubiousPusher]

The perrenial misunderstanding about lobbying in the US is that it's about money. It's not. It's about access. The money spent by lobbying firms is almost always in pursuit of that access. AKA buying a $10,000 plate at this donor dinner gets you a sit down with the Senator.

Not only do lobbyists get more accessible they get more credibility. The lobbyists are high paid lawyers at respected firms. They have degrees from respected schools. They have worked on the issue at discussion at lemgth. So when citizens are stacked up against these people they seem comparatively crankish.

This provision isn't in the bill because Intuit bribed someone. It's because that 6.6 million bought a lot of sit downs with committee members. Sit downs in which lobbyists told a convincing story of how it would actually be better for everyone of the IRS couldn't do this. Honestly they probably made some process argument for this. Something like it would get challenged in court anyway and be a big waste of money. Or about how you should make it illegal so the Executive Branch won't do it on their own and they'll have to take congressional input. And the lobbyist almost certainly believes whatever line their feeding the politicians.

It's like most broken things in life. No one is evil stuff just breaks.

[hbosch]

I think this is a very level-headed view of lobbying and I want to say that I appreciate your comment. It’s enticing to imagine that Intuit is building a new pool on Chuck Schumer’s vacation property, and in a dark room somewhere a bunch of fat white guys are lighting this bill in fire with the ends of their cigars.

One other factor is that in “government time” we’re not far removed from the Healthcare.gov fiasco and in the middle of a debate over the technical debt of our easily hacked voting machines. Along with that, Premera and Equifax have suffered attacks.

I imagine there is nobody inside the actual government that is willing to try and “outdo” Turbotax.

[gowld]

Paying for access is a bribe. What confuses people is that yes it really is incredibly cheap to bribe Congress and get crazy high ROI, because Intuit can get organized (it's already a corporation with management) afford $6Million in bribes but Americans for sane tax policy can't.

This is what "moneyed special interests" refers to.

[wwweston]

Seconding this. I wish more people understood that "lobbying" is largely making a case to congressional staff, not another word for bribery.

And half the problem is that we need more lobbying, not less.

Donor access is an issue, but I think the larger problem that no one knows how to address with campaign finance laws of any kind is that someone with enough money can simply use that money to hire an army of persuasive people, much as you described.

[csharpminor]

Reported donations also don't capture that lobbyists can threaten to contribute to an opposing campaign. A candidate receiving a $10k donation may also have received a $70k threat (in the form of a donation to an opponent) had they decided otherwise on an issue.

[blindwatchmaker]

I'm sure it's just coincidental that senators and their family/friends frequently get lucrative positions on the boards of various companies, investment sweeteners, and actual positions in these companies for family. For example Joe Biden, a leading Democrat, has been in bed with the credit card industry for most of his career and supported/written legislation in their interest. MBNA was one of his biggest donors and hired one of his sons at an executive level, no doubt with very high pay.

The campaign contributions are just window dressing for the rest of it. It absolutely is bribery.

[SilasX]

I'd like to see a readout of these oh-so-convincing arguments.

I think we caught a glimpse of what lobbyists are telling senators when Ted "Series of Tubes" Stevens sloppily repeated the explanation of the internet he was fed.

(To head off the argument: I agree that the "series of tubes" part itself was correct; the problem was the lacking understanding of the relationship between "data transfer has a cost" and "why net neutrality is bad". Also the dubious anecdote about intern emails. "Series of tubes" is just the label for cluster of confusions, not the part he got wrong.)

[malloryerik]

> No one is evil stuff just breaks.

Are you implying here that the problem can't be fixed or ameliorated?

> buying a $10,000 plate at this donor dinner gets you a sit down with the Senator

What if there were no donor dinners because campaigns were limited to a set amount of public funds?

[rayiner]

> Neal, received $16,000 in contributions from the two companies in the last two election cycles[.]

This statement is false. If you look at Open Secrets, $16,000 lines up exactly with what H&R Block and Intuit employees donated to Neal in 2016 and 2018. H&R Block and Intuit have tens of thousands of employees--it's not surprising that many donated to a Democrat with a high-ranking committee position.

Fun fact: By the article's parlance "Google" gave more to Neal in 2018 than Intuit. Gasp--Google must be in on the tax filing scam too!

[TomMckenny]

What they receive is only part of the calculation.

What your opponent will receive in the next election or primary is a bigger issue. And that implied stick is much cheaper than giving out carrots all the time.

[cure]

Those numbers sound about right. It is surprisingly cheap to influence our Representatives and Senators.

Maybe it would be within range of a decent crowdsourcing campaign to raise the amount of cash to buy enough influence and lobbying to move the needle on things that are in the public interest, like this issue.

Ugh. If only more of our Representatives and Senators actually worked for the people, rather than for whomever promises them the most money...

[snowwrestler]

> Maybe it would be within range of a decent crowdsourcing campaign to raise the amount of cash to buy enough influence and lobbying to move the needle on things that are in the public interest

This is what PACs and nonprofits do. If you want to participate, there is probably already at least one for whatever issue you care about.

[chillacy]

$16k to sell out? Don't these people raise millions?

[dgacmu]

Big donors are a high return-on-time for busy politicians. I donated the max (2*$2700) to a few candidates during the previous midterm elections, and was (naively) surprised to be invited to have brief 1:1 meetings with each of them. Money speaks depressingly loudly in politics. Corporations have to go through PACs, but many have their own (Intuit has their "21st Century Leadership Fund" PAC, which you can view here:

https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00361741...

Not all candidates accept PAC funds, but enough do.

It's disheartening.

[peteretep]

If the marginal cost is zero of raising, raise all the amounts

[diminoten]

Not really, no! Most national elections sure, but I think most congressional races aren't nearly as expensive.

[_gi12]

As noted by the economist Luigi Zingales in his book "A Capitalism for the People", companies that are receiving subsidies (or other favorable treatment from the government) are highly incentivized to keep receiving those subsidies. For example, if the tax preparation industry stands to lose $100 million if e-file becomes free, they will lobby up to that amount to retain the status quo.

The problem is that those who wish to reform the status quo are not as well funded or financially incentivized to create a counter-lobby. Ordinary citizens, who would benefit the most from making e-file free, would have to form a counter-lobby group and put up at least $6 million in order to have the same level of access as the tax preparation companies.

Zingales' proposed solution is to do away with subsidies and special treatment for individual companies, as they inevitably lead to cronyism.

[peteretep]

Also add to that: I suspect most people in Congress would need to hire an accountant anyway so it would benefit them in the least