Consequences of Lobbying and Bribery

Consequences of Lobbying and Bribery

Amoke` Nixon

BUSN150-1104B-178

November 13, 2011

Martine Anderson

Consequences of Lobbying and Bribery

From a distance lobbying and bribery seem to be one in the same, but in reality they are slightly different. In order to understand the difference between the two we must look at their definitions. Bribery can be defined as being the act or practice of giving and receiving a bribe. Lobbying can be defined as the act of individuals who give solicitations to make an impact on legislative members for personal or political gain.

Bribery is considered to be against the law due to the fact that it is a crime to furnish any type of gift or gifts in order to receive something in return. Lobbying usually consists of members that uphold highly respectable positions, whether in the government or in corporate businesses. So the main difference between lobbying and bribery would be the fact that bribery uses what is called the quid pro quo, which is like saying “I will give you this for that”. Whereas lobbying on the other hand is not considered to be illegal, but at the same time it can be considered unethical.

According to the Washington Post article, SLOC members do not have the right to an argument. Based on the article the members made payments and gifts that were worth “hundreds of thousands of dollars” ("The big business," 1999) to select IOC members that can be considered in excess of their limit of $150. The SLOC members also have no room for argument because based on the FCPA’s definition; the payments did not assist in obtaining ministerial actions. When it comes to ethical and legal principals being violated, I do not feel that there is any particular punishment that would be appropriate. All punishments to me would seem to be fitting for an ethical or legal violation.

However, depending on the location of occurrence, punishments can vary. An individual with strong pull in certain areas can wind up...