3 ms·

Am I the only one that thinks this whole controversy is extraordinarily silly? In order to do work, you have to understand the effects of your work. And that ca

Am I the only one that thinks this whole controversy is extraordinarily silly? In order to do work, you have to understand the effects of your work. And that can require having close conversations with the parties you are trying to regulate, both to ensure that the regulations have the desired effect, while also ensuring that they don't have undesired side effects. It's pretty easy to model an interaction where the party being regulated would pay to make sure their concerns are being heard, while the regulator still has every intention of implementing an effective solution. Yes, politics are messy and there is more give and take than that, but even with that it doesn't necessarily rise to the level of true corruption. I dislike that the whole lobbyist conversation has gotten dumbed down to the point that any kind of conversation is by definition evidence of corruption. It could just as easily be described as another form of diplomacy. But we don't tend to claim (at least not since the days of Karl Rove scoffing about the desire to "understand" our enemies) that diplomatic ties are by definition a "conflict of interest".

rlpb 11y ago
> I dislike that the whole lobbyist conversation has gotten dumbed down to the point that any kind of conversation is by definition evidence of corruption. quadrangle talked about conversation and campaign contributions together. Conversation by itself is fine. But I see no reason why payments by lobbyists shouldn't be de facto evidence of corruption.
tghw 11y ago
It's not silly at all. Yes, politics are messy, but there is a huge chasm between talking to lobbyists and taking their money. The former is, as you point out, necessary to the process. But the latter inherently undermines the process. As soon as you can legitimately ask whether or not a donation has affected policy, it becomes impossible to fully trust the system. And the more relevant the question becomes (i.e. the more money that has changed hands) the less trust you can have. Being a representative democracy, we're forced to trust our elected representatives to do what is in our best interest, which may be at odds with what the lobbyists want, because 99.98% of us don't have the money or influence to compete with the lobbying arm of an entire industry. For example, do you think there is a reason that politicians who take money from oil interests are strongly correlated with those who deny climate change?
quadrangle 11y ago
If by "this whole controversy" you want to talk about the fact that Hillary gets lots of big money contributions, that's not what my comment was about. My comment was about her denying the overwhelmingly scientifically-supported fact that people are influenced and biased by conflicts-of-interest and by those they spend their time around. Sure, someone could say, "I work at a Starbucks on Wall Street and spend my time mostly around bankers and such, and I hate them." I mean, I wasn't saying that spending time with people necessarily makes you sympathetic. But it certainly affects you in some ways. I didn't say "Hillary is disqualified because she's corrupt" (although that may be true, that wasn't my comment). My point is this: understanding the power of conflicts-of-interest over even totally well-intentioned people is among the most important things for anyone to understand in life (both about themselves and others). Hillary is spreading a message that even questioning someone about conflicts-of-interest amounts to calling them ill-intentioned. That idea is among the worst, most dangerous, most destructive ideas anyone could spread. Someone who claims effectively that only bad people are influenced by conflicts-of-interest is someone who has such wrong ideas about reality that they should never get any power.

rlpb 11y ago

> I dislike that the whole lobbyist conversation has gotten dumbed down to the point that any kind of conversation is by definition evidence of corruption. quadrangle talked about conversation and campaign contributions together. Conversation by itself is fine. But I see no reason why payments by lobbyists shouldn't be de facto evidence of corruption.

tghw 11y ago

It's not silly at all. Yes, politics are messy, but there is a huge chasm between talking to lobbyists and taking their money. The former is, as you point out, necessary to the process. But the latter inherently undermines the process. As soon as you can legitimately ask whether or not a donation has affected policy, it becomes impossible to fully trust the system. And the more relevant the question becomes (i.e. the more money that has changed hands) the less trust you can have. Being a representative democracy, we're forced to trust our elected representatives to do what is in our best interest, which may be at odds with what the lobbyists want, because 99.98% of us don't have the money or influence to compete with the lobbying arm of an entire industry. For example, do you think there is a reason that politicians who take money from oil interests are strongly correlated with those who deny climate change?

quadrangle 11y ago

If by "this whole controversy" you want to talk about the fact that Hillary gets lots of big money contributions, that's not what my comment was about. My comment was about her denying the overwhelmingly scientifically-supported fact that people are influenced and biased by conflicts-of-interest and by those they spend their time around. Sure, someone could say, "I work at a Starbucks on Wall Street and spend my time mostly around bankers and such, and I hate them." I mean, I wasn't saying that spending time with people necessarily makes you sympathetic. But it certainly affects you in some ways. I didn't say "Hillary is disqualified because she's corrupt" (although that may be true, that wasn't my comment). My point is this: understanding the power of conflicts-of-interest over even totally well-intentioned people is among the most important things for anyone to understand in life (both about themselves and others). Hillary is spreading a message that even questioning someone about conflicts-of-interest amounts to calling them ill-intentioned. That idea is among the worst, most dangerous, most destructive ideas anyone could spread. Someone who claims effectively that only bad people are influenced by conflicts-of-interest is someone who has such wrong ideas about reality that they should never get any power.