National Retail Federation says 2021 data was flawed and based on congressional testimony from president of an advocacy group

The powerful National Retail Federation (NRF) lobbying group has retracted a claim that “organized retail crime” accounted for “nearly half” of the shopping industry’s $94.5bn losses due to theft or “shrink” in 2021.

The industry group had said the impact of organized retail crime, which it previously claimed had increased by 26.5%, had become increasingly violent. Retail giants like Target, Walmart and Walgreens said it was threatening their businesses.

The NRF said the figure was based on a congressional testimony from Ben Dugan, the former president of an advocacy group, the Coalition of Law Enforcement and Retail, and that an analyst from K2 Integrity, a risk consultancy that co-authored the report, inferred the “nearly half” claim.

  • _number8_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    131
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    why the fuck do we even allow lobbying. bullshit fake gamified system that no proper country should have

    • pl_woah@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Writing to your representative is a form of lobbying

      An unsolicited expert opinion is lobbying

      What’s messed up is the amount of money to run and that citizens united made unlimited funds possible

      Congressmen always worried about the cash they’ll need to get elected

      If there were term limits we would have faceless corporate buyouts with little experience, vs someone running on name recognition

      Heck I want a campaign finance max limit.

      • CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        Unfortunately, term limits can’t stop this.

        Campaign finance reform can. Anyone running for office has a cap on how much can be spent. Political organizations also have a cap and they have to disclose who their donors are.

        No more dark money.

        I’d say we should go so far as to move to sortition (randomly selected people serving a term in office) but I am pragmatic.

      • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        An unsolicited expert opinion is lobbying

        Right. Politicians know nothing about technology half the time, right?

        Who does know - it’s people in the technology field.

        They have to communicate somehow. Not saying it’s not broken today, and I think you could have a clever setup of advisors, but at the end of the day there will just have to be some kind of input by experts.

      • chitak166@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Let’s just skip all the bullshit and move straight to direct voting.

        It’s been proven that congress doesn’t follow the will of the people, anyways.

    • Alto@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because at least in theory, lobbying is at the core of a functioning republic. If you and couple neighbors get together to try to convince your county aldermen to fix some potholes, that’s lobbying. Any time a person tries to influence their representative, it’s lobbying. It’s incredibly difficult to have actual codified laws that allow the things you want without also opening up tons of loopholes for corruption.

      • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s incredibly difficult to have actual codified laws that allow the things you want without also opening up tons of loopholes for corruption.

        Why do you think it’s hard to separate the two? One involves receiving money or business perks and the other serves the community.

        • Alto@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because directly receiving money is already illegal. Anything currently legal is so because it’s protected by the same things protecting local organizations putting up flyers/billboards/radio ads/etc. Even stricter monetary limits don’t really work, as you end up catching things such national humane society ads, because if they contain any messaging regarding support for legislation/wanting new legislation it’s considered lobbying.

          It’s really just an intro to the subject, but Knowing Better has a great video on it. Great leaping off point. The very short and very inadequate TL;DW is essentially that “get the money out of politics” doesn’t actually mean anything.

          • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t have time to watch the video but I will later. It’s never going to be possible to get the money out of politics 100%, but transparency and getting rid of super pacs would go a long way.

            • Alto@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Oh there is absolutely more we could be doing, especially regarding tracking dark money spending. I was primarily pointing out that “we should just get rid of lobbying” is an almost entirely nonsensical statement.

    • MxM111@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      It is the right to petition government. Not allowing this is kind of fascist?