2 ms·

Just because you found an example of a politician making it fairly far (but probably not even getting elected) without the support of the rich does not mean tha

by dcposch 10y ago

Just because you found an example of a politician making it fairly far (but probably not even getting elected) without the support of the rich does not mean that money in politics isn't a problem. In America, there are two kinds of politicians who can get by without wealthy donors: 1. grassroots candidates who go viral, who can get big social media followings and lots of organic non-ad media 2. independently rich people, who can simply bankroll their own campaigns Bernie Sanders is an example of #1. Ross Perot is an example of #2. Donald Trump is, to an extent, both #1 and #2! Most politicians in the US, both in Congress and at the state level, are neither #1 nor #2. They depend on donors who typically write $1000+ checks, every single election cycle. As a result, they spend a shocking amount of their time talking to rich people. It's called Call Time, and for the average congressperson, it's about four hours per day: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/14/the-most-depressing-graphic-for-members-of-congress/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/14/the-m... -- When people like Lawrence Lessig or Bernie talk about "getting money out of politics", they are not referring to third-world style quid pro quo corruption. They are not talking about an envelope of cash passed under a restaurant table. They are talking about something more subtle that's absolutely pervasive in modern US politics: career politicians whose continued employment depends on their ability to raise money, who every day meet and hear from the wealthiest crust of their constituency. When you spend four hours every day on the phone with the kind of people who might write a $2700 max-allowable-donation check for some representative's re-election campaign, it affects your thinking. Donor issues are always top of mind. How you vote on that pipeline bill today is going to make it either a lot easier or a lot harder to talk to those twenty or thirty guys you have to call next week, asking for money.

snowwrestler 10y ago
Congress is not uniquely problematic because members of Congress have to raise money. Everyone has to raise money. Larry Lessig has had to raise money many times in his career. There are two reasons that members of Congress have to spend so much time raising money. First, there are strict limits on federal campaign contributions. Candidates can only get up to $2,700 from each person per cycle, and no money from organizations at all. Nonprofit guys like Bill McKibben or Grover Norquist can land $100,000 in one meeting. It will take a federal candidate at least 37 individual donors to get the same amount. I'm not saying the limits are bad. I think they are good. But they have side effects. Second, people don't want to give money to politicians, so it takes a ton of time and energy to get even small donations. And here is where Lessig and others have been so counter-productive. They think they're making the sort of subtle argument that you describe. They think they're firing people up for action. But what they've actually done is promulgate 2 simple messages: 1) Money In Politics Is Bad, and 2) The System Is So Broken You Can't Win. Both these messages discourage their fans from engaging effectively in political and civic institutions--thereby making things even worse for themselves. Lessig told all his fans that money is bad and politics is unwinnable... of course he's having trouble creating a political movement!
- dcposch 10y ago
  > Congress is not uniquely problematic because members of Congress have to raise money. Everyone has to raise money. Larry Lessig has had to raise money many times in his career. I bet Lessig has never spent four hours cold-calling wealthy potential donors even once, let alone every single weekday for years at a time. An academic like Lessig may have to write grant applications every few months. Legislators, both state and Congressional, are uniquely problematic. Few jobs are so constantly dependent on the favor of wealthy donors, and none are in as good a position to repay their generosity, usually in subtle and indirect ways, once in office.

by dcposch 10y ago

snowwrestler 10y ago

Congress is not uniquely problematic because members of Congress have to raise money. Everyone has to raise money. Larry Lessig has had to raise money many times in his career. There are two reasons that members of Congress have to spend so much time raising money. First, there are strict limits on federal campaign contributions. Candidates can only get up to $2,700 from each person per cycle, and no money from organizations at all. Nonprofit guys like Bill McKibben or Grover Norquist can land $100,000 in one meeting. It will take a federal candidate at least 37 individual donors to get the same amount. I'm not saying the limits are bad. I think they are good. But they have side effects. Second, people don't want to give money to politicians, so it takes a ton of time and energy to get even small donations. And here is where Lessig and others have been so counter-productive. They think they're making the sort of subtle argument that you describe. They think they're firing people up for action. But what they've actually done is promulgate 2 simple messages: 1) Money In Politics Is Bad, and 2) The System Is So Broken You Can't Win. Both these messages discourage their fans from engaging effectively in political and civic institutions--thereby making things even worse for themselves. Lessig told all his fans that money is bad and politics is unwinnable... of course he's having trouble creating a political movement!

dcposch 10y ago
> Congress is not uniquely problematic because members of Congress have to raise money. Everyone has to raise money. Larry Lessig has had to raise money many times in his career. I bet Lessig has never spent four hours cold-calling wealthy potential donors even once, let alone every single weekday for years at a time. An academic like Lessig may have to write grant applications every few months. Legislators, both state and Congressional, are uniquely problematic. Few jobs are so constantly dependent on the favor of wealthy donors, and none are in as good a position to repay their generosity, usually in subtle and indirect ways, once in office.