Why none of the parties support this initiative? Is it going too far? Do you think people with vested interests should be taking decisions on these topics?
Almost none of the people I know of have heard of it. I find it pity that this initiative is not more discussed.
https://www.no-lobbying.ch/
Posted by Positive_Plane_2024
11 Comments
I’ve been independently talking about exactly this and in those exact terms for years around me. Where do I bloody sign?? (It’s in the website)
Me and my friends signed this, I hope we will vote for it. However, I fear that there will be a lot of counter-advertising as soon as a vote is held.
So what exactly are “ausgewiesenen wirtschaftlichen oder politischen Interessenbindungen”? I’d say as a polititian it is normal to have political connections/interests/ participations on political groups…
I get the idea, but as with all these initiatives that are vaguely worded, it largly depends on how the actual law will look like.
still an absolute joke and looking at the committee… it just confirms it. good luck to all who support this. a bunch of dreamers.
No‑Lobbying Initiative would place CH among the strictest democracies in the world when it comes to conflicts‑of‑interest rules for elected officials. Most strong democracies regulate lobbyists, but far fewer restrict parliamentarians themselves from participating in decisions when they have outside interests.
Across the EU, UK, Canada, Australia, and the US, the dominant model is to regulate lobbyists. But they rarely restrict elected officials from voting or serving on committees due to outside interests
Most democracies rely on disclosure, not exclusion. Then ethics committees are escalated to, not needing to enforce constitutional bans.
The No‑Lobbying Initiative would introduce:
– Mandatory recusal for MPs with vested interests
– Ban on serving on relevant parliamentary commissions
– Constitutional‑level restrictions, not just statutory rules
This is much stricter than the norm in comparable democracies and would restrict the mandate of elected officials. Thus the lack of support from parties and as a consequence the limited publicity IMHO
A typical issue that can arise. An elected official comes from the telecom sector where s/he had a carreer and maybe still has some links. Should s/he be in the telecom commission that will allocate the 6G (or whatever) new frequency bands? If not, should that commission be composed exclusively of people outside the telecom industry and who as a consequence have limited knowledge of how everything works and maybe not take the right decisions? Can that telecom executive be neutral or can we have transparency rules that ensure a proper process while benefiting from the expertise? Same thing for doctors in the medical committees etc.
For me the key question is if we want democracy to be based on full transparency + freedom of the press like the Nordics and we vote out the bad apples, or if we believe this doesn’t work and have to restrict the role of our elected officials.
I may print out 20 of those and plop them into my apartments letter boxes.
it‘s pointless because it‘s insanely vague. and the issue is that people have different perceptions of what ‚lobbying‘ is. interest groups being able to talk to politicians isn‘t a bad thing per se. it‘s just that depending on who it is, we call it lobbying. if the association for happy little kittens wants to talk to a politician, that‘s also lobbying, but no one complains.
Will sign and send
Very interesting. I will check it out
Lien économique ou politique avéré : tu es vert et membre de l’ate, de pro natura ou du WWF, donc tu ne peux plus être dans la commission environnement ?
thats fucking stupid, im a member of a “verein” that did some (succesful) lobbying too. What did we lobby for? we tried to make sure that HTL and Fachhochschule chemists have the same rights as university masters when it comes to handling hazardous goods in the industry (the university guys are the worst, no practical experience at all)