To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gift offered by tobacco industry lobbyists to Dutch politician Kartika Liotard in September 2013
Gift offered by tobacco industry lobbyists to Dutch politician Kartika Liotard in September 2013

Lobbying, persuasion, or interest representation is the act of attempting to influence the actions, policies, or decisions of officials, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies. Lobbying, which usually involves direct, face-to-face contact, is done by many types of people, associations and organized groups, including individuals in the private sector, corporations, fellow legislators or government officials, or advocacy groups (interest groups). Lobbyists may be among a legislator's constituencies, meaning a voter or bloc of voters within their electoral district; they may engage in lobbying as a business. Professional lobbyists are people whose business is trying to influence legislation, regulation, or other government decisions, actions, or policies on behalf of a group or individual who hires them. Individuals and nonprofit organizations can also lobby as an act of volunteering or as a small part of their normal job. Governments often define and regulate organized group lobbying that has become influential.

The ethics and morals involved with lobbying are complicated. Lobbying can, at times, be spoken of with contempt, when the implication is that people with inordinate socioeconomic power are corrupting the law in order to serve their own interests. When people who have a duty to act on behalf of others, such as elected officials with a duty to serve their constituents' interests or more broadly the public good, can benefit by shaping the law to serve the interests of some private parties, a conflict of interest exists. Many critiques of lobbying point to the potential for conflicts of interest to lead to agent misdirection or the intentional failure of an agent with a duty to serve an employer, client, or constituent to perform those duties. The failure of government officials to serve the public interest as a consequence of lobbying by special interests who provide benefits to the official is an example of agent misdirection.[1]

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    461 551
    18 656
    2 759
    16 395
    2 823
  • ✪ Interest Groups: Crash Course Government and Politics #42
  • ✪ Interest groups and lobbying | Political participation | US government and civics | Khan Academy
  • ✪ Grassroots Lobbying Basics
  • ✪ How to Become a Lobbyist
  • ✪ The US Elections Explained: Lobbying


Hello, I'm Craig and this is Crash Course Government and Politics and today we're going to talk about something almost every American has an opinion on: interest groups. Now if you've been watching these episodes and reading the comments you might be thinking that we've been trying to avoid the issue of money in politics and the role of special interests in the U.S. political system. We have. If you are one those people that wants to talk about money in politics, this episode will not disappoint you. I'm kidding, I know that some of you will still be disappointed. But mainly because I'm still not John Green. [Theme Music] So before we get into how interests groups influence American politics, let's define what we mean by interest groups. Groups of people who put money in banks and gain interest. That's not what we mean. An interest group is an organized group of individuals that make policy-related appeals to government. Now, interest groups don't actually have to meet in person, in fact in the case of very large interest groups it would be almost impossible to get them together in a room. But most interest groups have a membership and often it's the size of the membership that gives the group's political clout. Political scientists tell us that there are 2 main things that interest groups do when they interact with the government. First, they try to shape policies, which they can do by mobilizing voters or by putting direct pressure on elected officials. The second and probably more important thing that interest groups do is gather information they can provide for elected officials. Some would characterize this gathering of information as interest groups writing bills for elected officials to pass into laws. So interest groups are most likely to focus on a particular branch of government and I'll give you 3 guesses which one. No not the supreme court even though with only 9 members it would be the most efficient way for an interest group to exert pressure. Punching is most efficient way for me to exert pressure onto an eagle. And not the executive branch because if you remember, the president has lots of professional people to advise him and since he can only serve two terms, he's less susceptible to pressure that way. That leaves congress, which is the answer! That's where the interest groups exert their pressure. But wait, what about the bureaucracy? Can't bureaucrats also be the target of interest group pressure? Yes, in fact they can mainly because interest groups, especially if they're well funded, can supply information that is either too costly or too difficult for congressmen or bureaucratic agencies to get. But adding the fourth group messes up the whole three guesses three branches bit I was trying to do. And guesses are fun. Let's go to the Thought Bubble. The combination of interest groups, congress, and the bureaucracy are sometimes called an "iron triangle" which sounds a lot cooler than it is. Actually it's pretty cool, unless you're talking about the neighborhood in Queens near where the Mets play in which case my previous statement still stands. Anyway, in a political iron triangle, not only do interest groups help out congress through contributions and support, they also provide congressmen with information. Some might say that interest groups don't just provide information, they actually write the bills that become laws. And it is true that interest groups often have lawyers who propose language that can make it into bills and laws. But this is much more likely to happen on the state and local level where legislators don't have the staff resources to do the research behind bills. In fact, the practice of interest groups writing bills for state legislature is depressingly common. Given that congressmen are pretty busy trying to get re-elected, it's not surprising that they will be grateful for information from interest groups. But what about bureaucracies? They're supposed to be made up of experts and they don't have to run for re-election, right? Well they are, and they don't, but information is really really costly, and often bureaucratic agencies are just not as well-funded as an interest group. The oil industry is represented by the American Petroleum Institute as well as individual oil and gas companies. Because it's highly regulated, the oil industry has a big interest in seeing legislation and regulations they like passed. But more important here is the fact that the oil and gas industry has a lot of money money money money - way more money than any particular federal agency, so it can spend money on research and provide information that the agencies often can't. Thanks Thought Bubble. One more thing about interest groups and bureaucracies: There's a big temptation to think that wealthy interests spend their money providing campaign contributions and information to Congressmen, and this does happen. But they can often be more effective providing information to agencies and writing regulations rather than the laws. As we've mentioned before, regulations are just as important as laws and for many industries, even more so. That's why you'll see a lot of interest group efforts spent lobbying bureaucratic agencies as well as Congress. Before we get into the question of whether or not interest groups are destroying American democracy, I want to clarify two things that interest groups are not: First off, an interest group is not a political party. As you remember, political parties exist to get candidates elected. Interest groups exist to influence the policies that those elected officials make. Interest groups are also not the same as political action committees or PACs. A PAC is an organization that collects and distributes campaign funds and information, and therefore is concerned with elections. Interest groups can give money to PACs and they can even form their own PACs, but they aren't exactly the same thing. Okay, so now the controversial issue with interest groups. Do they have too much influence? To sort this out, I'm going to need some help from some friends, and by friends I mean clones, which aren't my friends. Let's head to the Clone Zone! Hey, here we are! Clone Zone! It's just like the regular zone except that thing's gone and there's a graphic. So today, clone with the tie is going to argue that interest groups are good for American democracy and clone without the tie is going to argue that they're bad. He also has bad fashion sense. Okay, go. Clone with a tie: The main argument in favor of interest groups has to do with pluralism. If all interest groups are free to compete to influence officials, then they'll balance each other out. It'll be cool. The idea of incorporating lots of groups goes back at least as far as James Madison. In the Federalist Papers, Madison argued for extending the sphere in American politics and encouraging more and more factions. The theory was that the more groups there were, the less likely that any one group could gain a corrupting influence over the government. Sort of like the idea of the wisdom of crowds or Condorcet's jury theorem. With more interest groups providing more information, we will get policies that are the result of thoughtful compromise. Another argument for interest groups is that they offer more opportunity for participation in politics. Elections only happen every two years, on the federal level at least, but policy gets made all the time, or at least, it's supposed to. By joining an interest group, an individual can push for a policy that care about all the time, not just at election time. And isn't participation the essence of democracy? I think yes. Clone without a tie: Sure, it's great to have more voices involved in policy making as long as each voice is powerful enough to be heard. In the current system, that is just not the case. Interest group politics diminishes American democracy because some interest groups are so powerful that their voices are able to crowd out all the others. And in America today, the people with the loudest voices are the wealthy! (loudly) And me right now! And it's not only because the wealthy have more money to give to politicians; although that does help. Obviously, people who are really poor can't offer campaign contributions, but there are plenty of advocates for them. But in America, the wealthy have other resources that the poor just can't bring to bear. Like money! Lotsa, lotsa, money! They tend to be better educated, so they have access to more information, and the ability to disseminate their views more (stumbling over the word) articulately. And just as important, wealthy people have more time to devote to political participation than the poor. Clone with a tie: Sure, what you're saying makes sense, but do you have any proof? I mean, there are plenty of laws protecting poor people. What about the earned income tax credit? Clone without a tie: Well, I have a chart. Clone with a tie: Oh. Clone without a tie: You can see that the number of PACs, while not exactly the same thing as interest groups, has grown an awful lot since the mid-1970s. Corporate interests, which by and large represent wealthy people, vastly outnumber the groups representing working people, like labor and cooperative groups. By numbers alone, wealthy interest groups would seem to have more power than other groups. But that's not all. A series of studies that culminated in the book Affluence & Influence by Martin Gilens shows pretty definitively that Congress is much more likely to enact laws that respond to the interests of the wealthy, than the poor. It's not that they never took poor people's interests into account, it's just that they are much, much more likely to make policies that favor the rich. Is that the essence of democracy? I think no. Wheezy: Thanks you beautiful clones. So there you have the basics of interest groups in America and why they are so controversial. I hope that you now have a better of what interest groups are and what they are not and how they work to influence policy in government, which is their main function in the American political system. You should also know what the Iron Triangle is and why people complain so much about interest groups in America today, other than they haven't had their coffee yet. Where's my coffee?!? Thank you. But I also hope that you understand the idea of pluralism, it's powerful idea and one that if taken seriously, shows the importance of participation in politics. This is empty. And that's ultimately what interest groups do for us. They give us another avenue to have our voices heard and contribute to the policies that shape our lives. Thanks for watching. I'll see you next time. Crash Course Government and Politics is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios. Support for Crash Course U.S. Government comes from Voqal. Voqal supports nonprofits that use technology and media to advance social equity. Learn more about their mission and initiatives at Crash Course is made with the help of all these very special interests. Thanks for watching.



In a report carried by the BBC, an OED lexicographer has shown that "lobbying" finds its roots in the gathering of Members of Parliament and peers in the hallways ("lobbies") of the UK Houses of Parliament before and after parliamentary debates where members of the public can meet their representatives.[2]

One story held that the term originated at the Willard Hotel in Washington, DC, where it was supposedly used by President Ulysses S. Grant to describe the political advocates who frequented the hotel's lobby to access Grant—who was often there in the evenings to enjoy a cigar and brandy—and would then try to buy the president drinks in an attempt to influence his political decisions.[3] Although the term may have gained more widespread currency in Washington, D.C. by virtue of this practice during the Grant Administration, the OED cites numerous documented uses of the word well before Grant's presidency, including use in Pennsylvania as early as 1808.[3]

The term "lobbying" also appeared in print as early as 1820:[4]

Other letters from Washington affirm, that members of the Senate, when the compromise question was to be taken in the House, were not only "lobbying about the Representatives' Chamber" but also active in endeavoring to intimidate certain weak representatives by insulting threats to dissolve the Union.

— April 1, 1820

Dictionary definitions:

  • 'Lobbying' (also 'lobby') is a form of advocacy with the intention of influencing decisions made by the government by individuals or more usually by lobby groups; it includes all attempts to influence legislators and officials, whether by other legislators, constituents, or organized groups.[5][6]
  • A 'lobbyist' is a person who tries to influence legislation on behalf of a special interest or a member of a lobby.[7]


Governments often[quantify] define and regulate organized group lobbying[8][9][10][11] as part of laws to prevent political corruption and by establishing transparency about possible influences by public lobby registers.

Lobby groups may concentrate their efforts on the legislatures, where laws are created, but may also use the judicial branch to advance their causes. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, for example, filed suits in state and federal courts in the 1950s to challenge segregation laws. Their efforts resulted in the Supreme Court declaring such laws unconstitutional.

Lobbyists may use a legal device known as amicus curiae (literally: "friend of the court") briefs to try to influence court cases. Briefs are written documents filed with a court, typically by parties to a lawsuit. Amici curiae briefs are briefs filed by people or groups who are not parties to a suit. These briefs are entered into the court records, and give additional background on the matter being decided upon. Advocacy groups use these briefs both to share their expertise and to promote their positions.

The lobbying industry is affected by the revolving door concept, a movement of personnel between roles as legislators and regulators and roles in the  industries affected by legislation and regulation, as the main asset for a lobbyist is contacts with and influence on government officials.[citation needed] This climate is attractive for ex-government officials.[citation needed] It can also mean substantial monetary rewards for lobbying firms, and government projects and contracts worth in the hundreds of millions for those they represent.[12][13]

The international standards for the regulation of lobbying were introduced at four international organizations and supranational associations: 1) the European Union; 2) the Council of Europe; 3) the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; 4) the Commonwealth of Independent States[14].


In pre-modern political systems, royal courts provided incidental opportunities for gaining the ear of monarchs and their councillors. Nowadays, lobbying has taken a more drastic position as big corporations pressure politicians to help them gain more benefit. Lobbying has become a big part of the world economy as big companies corrupt laws and regulations.[15]


Kellogg School of Management found that political donations by corporations do not increase shareholder value.[16][why?]

Lobbying by country


Over the past twenty years, lobbying in Australia has grown from a small industry of a few hundred employees to a multi-billion dollar per year industry. What was once the preserve of big multinational companies and at a more local level, property developers, for example Urban Taskforce Australia, has morphed into an industry that would employ more than 10,000 people and represent every facet of human endeavour.[17]

Public lobbyist registers

A register of federal lobbyists is kept by the Australian Government and is accessible to the public via its website.[18] Similar registers for State government lobbyists were introduced between 2007 and 2009 around Australia. Since April 2007 in Western Australia, only lobbyists listed on the state's register are allowed to contact a government representative for the purpose of lobbying.[19] Similar rules have applied in Tasmania since 1 September 2009[20] and in South Australia and Victoria since 1 December 2009.[21][22]

European Union

Wikimania 2009, results of the discussion about possible contents of European lobbying
Wikimania 2009, results of the discussion about possible contents of European lobbying

The first step towards specialized regulation of lobbying in the European Union was a Written Question tabled by Alman Metten, in 1989. In 1991, Marc Galle, Chairman of the Committee on the Rules of Procedure, the Verification of Credentials and Immunities, was appointed to submit proposals for a Code of conduct and a register of lobbyists. Today lobbying in the European Union is an integral and important part of decision-making in the EU. From year to year lobbying regulation in the EU is constantly improving and the number of lobbyists increases[23]. According to Austrian Member of the European Parliament ("MEP") Hans-Peter Martin, the value of lobby invitations and offers each individual MEP receives can reach up to €10,000 per week.[24]

In 2003 there were around 15,000 lobbyists (consultants, lawyers, associations, corporations, NGOs etc.) in Brussels seeking to influence the EU’s legislation. Some 2,600 special interest groups had a permanent office in Brussels. Their distribution was roughly as follows: European trade federations (32%), consultants (20%), companies (13%), NGOs (11%), national associations (10%), regional representations (6%), international organizations (5%) and think tanks (1%), (Lehmann, 2003, pp iii).[25][26] In addition to this, lobby organisations sometimes hire former EU employees (a phenomenon known as the revolving door) who possess inside knowledge of the EU institutions and policy process [27] A report by Transparency International EU published in January 2017 analysed the career paths of former EU officials and found that 30% of Members of the European Parliament who left politics went to work for organisations on the EU lobby register after their mandate and approximately one third of Commissioners serving under Barroso took jobs in the private sector after their mandate, including for Uber, ArcelorMittal, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America Merrill Lynch. These potential conflicts of interest could be avoided if a stronger ethics framework would be established at the EU level, including an independent ethics body and longer cooling-off periods for MEPs.[27]

In the wake of the Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal in Washington D.C. and the massive impact this had on the lobbying scene in the United States, the rules for lobbying in the EU—which until now consist of only a non-binding code of conduct-—may also be tightened.[28]

Eventually on 31 January 2019 the European Parliament adopted binding rules on lobby transparency. Amending its Rules of Procedure, the Parliament stipulated that MEPs involved in drafting and negotiating legislation must publish online their meetings with lobbyists.[29] The amendment says that “rapporteurs, shadow rapporteurs or committee chairs shall, for each report, publish online all scheduled meetings with interest representatives falling under the scope of the Transparency Register”-database of the EU. [30]


There is currently no regulation at all for lobbying activities in France. There is no regulated access to the French institutions and no register specific to France, but there is one for the European Union[31] where French lobbyists can register themselves.[32] For example, the internal rule of the National Assembly (art. 23 and 79) forbids members of Parliament to be linked with a particular interest. Also, there is no rule at all for consultation of interest groups by the Parliament and the Government. Nevertheless, a recent parliamentary initiative (motion for a resolution) has been launched by several MPs so as to establish a register for representatives of interest groups and lobbyists who intend to lobby the MPs.[33]


A 2016 study finds evidence of significant indirect lobbying of Berlusconi through business proxies.[34] The authors document a significant pro-Mediaset (the mass media company founded and controlled by Berlusconi) bias in the allocation of advertising spending during Berlusconi's political tenure, in particular for companies operating in more regulated sectors.[34]

United Kingdom

United States

K Street NW at 19th Street in Washington D.C., part of downtown Washington's maze of high-powered "K Street lobbyist" and law firm office buildings.
K Street NW at 19th Street in Washington D.C., part of downtown Washington's maze of high-powered "K Street lobbyist" and law firm office buildings.

Lobbying in the United States describes paid activity in which special interests hire professional advocates to argue for specific legislation in decision-making bodies such as the United States Congress. Lobbying in the United States could be seen to originate from Amendment I of the Constitution of the United States, which states: Congress shall make no law…abridging the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances . Some lobbyists are now using social media to reduce the cost of traditional campaigns, and to more precisely target public officials with political messages.[35]

A number of published studies showed lobbying expenditure is correlated with great financial returns. For example, a 2011 study of the 50 firms that spent the most on lobbying relative to their assets compared their financial performance against that of the S&P 500 in the stock market concluded that spending on lobbying was a "spectacular investment" yielding "blistering" returns comparable to a high-flying hedge fund, even despite the financial downturn of the past few years.[36] A 2011 meta-analysis of previous research findings found a positive correlation between corporate political activity and firm performance.[37] Finally, a 2009 study found that lobbying brought a substantial return on investment, as much as 22,000% in some cases.[38] Major American corporations spent $345 million lobbying for just three pro-immigration bills between 2006 and 2008.[39]

Foreign-funded lobbying efforts include those of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, and China lobbies. In 2010 alone, foreign governments spent approximately $460 million on lobbying members of Congress and government officials.[40]

Other countries

Other countries where lobbying is regulated in parliamentary bills include:

  • Canada: Canada maintains a Registry of Lobbyists.[41]
  • Israel (1994)[42]
  • India: In India, where there is no law regulating the process, lobbying had traditionally been a tool for industry bodies (like FICCI) and other pressure groups to engage with the government ahead of the national budget. One reason being that lobbying activities were repeatedly identified in the context of corruption cases. For example, in 2010, leaked audio transcripts of Nira Radia. Not only private companies but even the Indian government has been paying a fee every year since 2005 to a US firm to lobby for ex. to the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal.[43] In India, there are no laws that defined the scope of lobbying, who could undertake it, or the extent of disclosure necessary. Companies are not mandated to disclose their activities and lobbyists are neither authorized nor encouraged to reveal the names of clients or public officials they have contacted. The distinction between Lobbying and bribery still remains unclear. In 2012, Walmart revealed it had spent $25 million since 2008 on lobbying to "enhance market access for investment in India." This disclosure came weeks after the Indian government made a controversial decision to permit FDI in the country's multi-brand retail sector.
  • Ukraine: In 2009, a special working group of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine developed a draft law "On Lobbying". However, this bill was not introduced into the Parliament of Ukraine[44].
  • Kazakhstan: Since the last century, since 1998, Kazakhstan has been trying to pass a law on lobbying[45]. The National Chamber of Entrepreneurs of Kazakhstan "Atameken" is one of the first official lobbying structures in the country. But there are other examples[46].

See also


  1. ^ Arab Lobby in the United States Handbook, 2015 edition, published by the Global Investment Center, USA (ISBN 1-4387-0226-4)
  2. ^ "BBC Definition of lobbying". BBC News. 2008-10-01. Retrieved 2013-06-20.
  3. ^ a b NPR - A Lobbyist by Any Other Name? - NPR discussion of Ulysses Grant and origins of the term lobbyist.
  4. ^ Deanna Gelak (previous president of the American League of Lobbyists) mentioned this in her book Lobbying and Advocacy: Winning Strategies, Resources, Recommendations, Ethics and Ongoing Compliance for Lobbyists and Washington Advocates, TheCapitol.Net, 2008,
  5. ^ "lobbying". Merriam-Webster Dictionary.Com.
  6. ^ "lobbying". BBC News. London. 1 October 2008. Retrieved 24 March 2010.
  7. ^ "lobbyist". Random House Unabridged Dictionary. 2006.
  8. ^ Non-Profit Action description of "Lobbying Versus Advocacy: Legal Definitions" Archived 2010-04-02 at the Wayback Machine.
  9. ^ U.S. Senate definition of Lobbying.
  10. ^ Andrew Bounds and Marine Formentinie in Brussels, EU Lobbyists Face Tougher Regulation, Financial Times, August 16, 2007.
  11. ^ A. Paul Pross. "Lobbying - The Canadian Encyclopedia". Retrieved 2013-06-20.
  12. ^ Timothy J. Burger, "The Lobbying Game: Why the Revolving Door Won't Close" Time (February 16, 2006). Retrieved May 12, 2011
  13. ^ "Revolving Door: Methodology" Archived 2007-12-25 at the Wayback Machine Center for Responsive Politics. Retrieved May 12, 2011
  14. ^ Nesterovych, Volodyymyr (2016). "International standards for the regulation of lobbying (EU, CE, OECD, CIS)". Krytyka Prawa. tom 8, nr 2: 79–101.
  15. ^ For example: Nicholls, Andrew D. (1999). "Kings, Courtiers, and Councillors: The Making of British Policy". The Jacobean Union: A Reconsideration of British Civil Policies Under the Early Stuarts. Contributions to the study of world history, ISSN 0885-9159. 64. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 51. ISBN 9780313308352. Retrieved 22 November 2018. The royal court was home to the king and therefore was an important arena for policy issues and decisions. [...] we find isolated examples of lobbyists for particular interests. An example of such a figure was Sir John Hay, who spent frequent intervals at court during [the reigns of James VI/I and Charles I] when he acted as agent for the Scottish Royal Burghs.
  16. ^ "When Corporations Donate to Candidates, Are They Buying Influence?".
  17. ^ Fitzgerald, Julian (2006). Lobbying In Australia: You Can’t Expect Anything to Change If You Don’t Speak Up.
  18. ^ "Who is on the register?". Department of the Prime Minister & Cabinet. Australian Government. Retrieved 2015-04-15.
  19. ^ "About the Register". Public Sector Commission - Register of Lobbyists. Government of Western Australia. 2011-07-20. Retrieved 2015-04-15.
  20. ^ "Register of Lobbyists : Register of Lobbyists". Retrieved 2015-07-03.
  21. ^ "South Australian Lobbyist Code of Conduct and Public Register". Department of Premier & Cabinet. Government of South Australia. Retrieved 2015-04-15.
  22. ^ "Questions and answers for Victorian Register of Lobbyists". Victorian Public Sector Commissioner - Register of Lobbyists. State Government of Victoria. 2014-06-20.
  23. ^ Nesterovych, Volodymyr (2015). "EU standards for the regulation of lobbying". Prawa Człowieka. nr 18: 98, 106.
  24. ^ "Taming Brussels lobby". New European. April 25, 2011.
  25. ^ Lehman, Wilhelm (2003). "Lobbying in the European Union: current rules and practices" (PDF). Retrieved September 14, 2011.
  26. ^ Petrillo, Pier Luigi (March 2013). "Form of government and lobbying UK and UE, a comparative perspective".
  27. ^ a b "Transparency International EU (2017) Access All Areas: when EU politicians become lobbyists".
  28. ^ Green Paper on European Transparency Initiative European Commission, 2006. Retrieved September 20, 2009
  29. ^ EU Parliament to end secret lobby meetings
  30. ^ Text adopted by EU Parliament on lobbying transparency
  31. ^ "Pleins feux sur les lobbies dans l'UE (28 October 2009)". 2009-10-28. Retrieved 2013-06-20.
  32. ^ Pseudo *. "Le lobbying passe aussi par le web (12 March 2012)". Retrieved 2013-06-20.
  33. ^ French National Assembly : Motion for a Resolution on Lobbying (21 November 2006) Archived March 25, 2009, at the Wayback Machine
  34. ^ a b DellaVigna, Stefano; Durante, Ruben; Knight, Brian; Ferrara, Eliana La. "Market-Based Lobbying: Evidence from Advertising Spending in Italy †". American Economic Journal: Applied Economics. 8 (1): 224–256. doi:10.1257/app.20150042.
  35. ^ "Government Lobbyists Are More Nimble Than Ever".
  36. ^ Brad Plumer (October 10, 2011). "The outsized returns from lobbying". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2012-01-13. ...Hiring a top-flight lobbyist looks like a spectacular investment ...
  37. ^ Lux, Sean; Crook, T. Russell; Woehr, David J. (January 2011). "Mixing Business With Politics: A Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents and Outcomes of Corporate Political Activity". Journal of Management. Retrieved November 26, 2012. doi: 10.1177/0149206310392233 Journal of Management; vol. 37 no. 1 223-247
  38. ^ Raquel Meyer Alexander, Stephen W. Mazza, & Susan Scholz. (8 April 2009). "Measuring Rates of Return for Lobbying Expenditures: An Empirical Case Study of Tax Breaks for Multinational Corporations" Retrieved 7 March 2013.
  39. ^ "How did opening borders to mass immigration become a 'Left-wing' idea?". 11 February 2016.
  40. ^ "Lobbying by Foreign Countries Decreases". Roll Call. September 14, 2011.
  41. ^ "Frequently asked questions". Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada. October 10, 2014. Retrieved April 7, 2019.
  42. ^ "Lobbies in the Knesset". 1997-04-01. Retrieved 2013-06-20.
  43. ^ "Indian government cuts down on US lobbying to lowest in 7 years". The Economic Times. July 30, 2017. Retrieved January 17, 2019.
  44. ^ Nesterovych, Volodymyr (2010). "Legalization, accreditation, control and supervisory activity concerning lobbyists and lobbying organizations: prospects for Ukraine" (PDF). Power. Man. Law. International Scientific Journal. № 1: 96–105.
  45. ^ Трубачева, Татьяна (2 May 2018). "Нужно ли в Казахстане узаконить лоббистов?".
  46. ^ "Lobbying interests in the structures of Kazakhstan".


External links

United States


This page was last edited on 5 October 2019, at 16:07
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.