Lobbying and Bribery

The difference between lobbying and bribery

According to Svensson & Harstad 2006, Lobbying is an act of influencing members who are required to pass a certain important motion through voting to ensure that they do according to one's favor.  For example, Salt Lake Organizing Committee had selected a group of people to lobby for a chance of holding 2002 Winter Olympics. Therefore, a formally organized group who has a certain interest over a certain issue does lobbying. Lobbying may be funded wholly or partially by the government or nations involved. It may involve political support from certain nations that is to be offered in return of the political influence or action that is to be taken. Mostly, legalized lobbying especially that involves the government rarely involves funding (Svensson & Harstad, 2006).

Bribery on the contrary involves inducement of once influence using money all any other resources to influence a certain action. Mostly the inducement is done in cash basis where no due legal process is followed. Bribery process may be done by a group or by a single person without any formal base. Therefore, bribery is a position whereby there is contribution of money in political group or in any organization group in pursuit of favor from them in passing a certain decision. The two words should not be confused as they have close relationship but diverse meaning.

The argument that SLOC members would have made

According the SLOC members the functions that they were undertaking was to lobby for the 2002 Olympic Games.  The group was legal and it was funded to ensure that they successfully lobby for this. Therefore, according to the argument that they could have tabled in their pursuit of ensuring that they are not accused of bribery would first involving the definition and the differences of both of the words. Because, lobbying is regal and accepted influence, which they were mandated to undertake through the fund, they were given while bribery is neither legal nor funded by any government (Austen, 1997). The influence of lobbying does not affect a specific individual or an organization but it is supposed to affect everyone.

The Olympics games were to affect the whole country if they were to be brought in US. In the contrary, bribing is done to ensure that the decision affects minority group in the whole setting. The other issue that they could have cited is the way the incentives were being given to the people who were to give their opinion.  There no money that were paid to them through the back or in cash basis. Lobbying is done according to the rules that are stipulated by the government and its influence changes a situation completely while bribe is not done following any rule and its influence in the rule is only meant to bend it to accommodate their interest put not changing a certain situation as in lobbying.

Appropriate punishment for the violation of ethical and legal principles

According to Ryberg 2004, the violation of the ethical and legal principles lead to completely public being affected by once act. The appropriate punishment to the SLAC members if they were involved in corruption deal as will be decided by the investigation bodies should be expulsion. They are supposed also to pay the amount of the money lost due to their unethical act and never to hold any public office in future.

How the group could have been dealt with due to corruption

The entire community should be held responsible as they participated in one way or the other. The expulsion of the members should be the first thing that should be done.  The ethical and legal practices should be made sensitive to the entire community by ensuring that they also suffer the consequences of the vice.