5 ms·

Is there a good reason why a representative would vote in favor of this?

by joshontheweb 10y ago

maxxxxx 10y ago
They read papers prepared by lobbyists, think "makes sense" and vote for it. That's how law making often works.
- joshontheweb 10y ago
  I'm having a hard time imagining a compelling case that the lobbyists could present though. Are most of these representatives just willfully corrupt? I hate to vilify people unduly but it is becoming hard to understand the thought process here.
  - throwaway91111 10y ago
    I suppose you could pitch it as making the internet more efficient economically. I don't think that increased consumer purchasing is necessarily high value, but it certainly has economic benefits to spending.
  - forgotmysn 10y ago
    think of elected representatives as beholden to shareholders, rather than voters, and it might make more sense to you.
    - maxxxxx 10y ago
      You can easily attribute it to laziness. They don't research a topic themselves so whoever makes the best presentation gets the vote. Usually that's lobbyists because they have more money and time and are hired as excellent communicators. Dinner invitations and paid flights in private jets help too.
      - forgotmysn 10y ago
        Right, and the lobbyists are hired, not because the corporations that hire them are inherently evil, but because they are mandated by their shareholders to change costly laws rather than comply with them. I'm not blaming our elected representatives, they are just part of a failing system.
        maxxxxx 10y ago
        Actually you should blame the representatives. They should be there for ALL citizens and have the greater good in mind not just the narrow interests of some.
  - maxxxxx 10y ago
    You can make a compelling case for pretty much anything if you don't have to present conflicting views. That's what lobbyists are experts for.
  - rhino369 10y ago
    >I'm having a hard time imagining a compelling case that the lobbyists could present though. If I were them: Look how much money Google and Facebook make doing this. Doesn't make sense to prevent AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast from doing the same.
  - pdkl95 10y ago
    > Are most of these representatives just willfully corrupt? Yes, but they prefer the terms "lobbying" and "campaign contributions". While theoretically they are concerned with their constituency so they can keep their job, the big problem with our system is the expense of running campaigns. While serving in congress, our representatives a massive amount of time is spent "dialing for dollars". The parties even require ("encourage") spending time "fundraising". This makes lobbying easy. Constructing a compelling case isn't necessary. Just promise to free up their time by making various donations to their campaign and/or their party. This is legal as long as there isn't specific quid pro quo, thanks to McDonnell v United States. John Oliver's overview of the problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylomy1Aw9Hk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylomy1Aw9Hk
    - rayiner 10y ago
      It's illegal for corporations to make campaign donations. McDonnell has nothing to do with that.
      - pdkl95 10y ago
        If the corporation is donating directly, it should be possible to show that the legislation was quid pro quo. I'm sure you're familiar with the numerous ways corporations (and others) add indirection when donating. Especially in the era of "Super PACs".
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
malcolmwhy 10y ago
At least in my district the ISP could simply paint it as a way to create more jobs for their business.
rayiner 10y ago
The telecommunications industry employs hundreds of thousands of people. It does so not just in California and New York, but in every state. And it creates the kind of middle class jobs states are desperate for. A unionized Verizon field tech can make six figures (with overtime), has generous benefits, and can get the job without a college degree. How many jobs do Google or Facebook create in Tennessee? How many blue collar six figure jobs do Google or Facebook create? If you're a telco, you can walk into the office of a politician in Alabama and say: "Hey, we employ 5,000 people in your state. Google employs 100. Why the hell would you support legislation that allows Google to make money this way but bans us from doing it?" (This is, incidentally, why the conventional wisdom about money ruling politics is bunk. Tech is one of the richest industries that exists. But it's relatively politically ineffectual because it employs so few people, and it does so primarily in a handful of rich, coastal states. A professor of mine once pointed out to me that in the environmental area, it's the environmental groups that need to do lobbying. The power company can just call up a Congress-critter and remind them of the thousands of jobs in their district that are tied to that company's well-being.)
snickerbockers 10y ago
A lot of people oppose government regulation on general principle.

Is there a good reason why a representative would vote in favor of this?

maxxxxx 10y ago

They read papers prepared by lobbyists, think "makes sense" and vote for it. That's how law making often works.

joshontheweb 10y ago
I'm having a hard time imagining a compelling case that the lobbyists could present though. Are most of these representatives just willfully corrupt? I hate to vilify people unduly but it is becoming hard to understand the thought process here.
- throwaway91111 10y ago
  I suppose you could pitch it as making the internet more efficient economically. I don't think that increased consumer purchasing is necessarily high value, but it certainly has economic benefits to spending.
- forgotmysn 10y ago
  think of elected representatives as beholden to shareholders, rather than voters, and it might make more sense to you.
  - maxxxxx 10y ago
    You can easily attribute it to laziness. They don't research a topic themselves so whoever makes the best presentation gets the vote. Usually that's lobbyists because they have more money and time and are hired as excellent communicators. Dinner invitations and paid flights in private jets help too.
    - forgotmysn 10y ago
      Right, and the lobbyists are hired, not because the corporations that hire them are inherently evil, but because they are mandated by their shareholders to change costly laws rather than comply with them. I'm not blaming our elected representatives, they are just part of a failing system.
      - maxxxxx 10y ago
        Actually you should blame the representatives. They should be there for ALL citizens and have the greater good in mind not just the narrow interests of some.
- maxxxxx 10y ago
  You can make a compelling case for pretty much anything if you don't have to present conflicting views. That's what lobbyists are experts for.
- rhino369 10y ago
  >I'm having a hard time imagining a compelling case that the lobbyists could present though. If I were them: Look how much money Google and Facebook make doing this. Doesn't make sense to prevent AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast from doing the same.
- pdkl95 10y ago
  > Are most of these representatives just willfully corrupt? Yes, but they prefer the terms "lobbying" and "campaign contributions". While theoretically they are concerned with their constituency so they can keep their job, the big problem with our system is the expense of running campaigns. While serving in congress, our representatives a massive amount of time is spent "dialing for dollars". The parties even require ("encourage") spending time "fundraising". This makes lobbying easy. Constructing a compelling case isn't necessary. Just promise to free up their time by making various donations to their campaign and/or their party. This is legal as long as there isn't specific quid pro quo, thanks to McDonnell v United States. John Oliver's overview of the problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylomy1Aw9Hk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylomy1Aw9Hk
  - rayiner 10y ago
    It's illegal for corporations to make campaign donations. McDonnell has nothing to do with that.
    - pdkl95 10y ago
      If the corporation is donating directly, it should be possible to show that the legislation was quid pro quo. I'm sure you're familiar with the numerous ways corporations (and others) add indirection when donating. Especially in the era of "Super PACs".

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

malcolmwhy 10y ago

At least in my district the ISP could simply paint it as a way to create more jobs for their business.

rayiner 10y ago

The telecommunications industry employs hundreds of thousands of people. It does so not just in California and New York, but in every state. And it creates the kind of middle class jobs states are desperate for. A unionized Verizon field tech can make six figures (with overtime), has generous benefits, and can get the job without a college degree. How many jobs do Google or Facebook create in Tennessee? How many blue collar six figure jobs do Google or Facebook create? If you're a telco, you can walk into the office of a politician in Alabama and say: "Hey, we employ 5,000 people in your state. Google employs 100. Why the hell would you support legislation that allows Google to make money this way but bans us from doing it?" (This is, incidentally, why the conventional wisdom about money ruling politics is bunk. Tech is one of the richest industries that exists. But it's relatively politically ineffectual because it employs so few people, and it does so primarily in a handful of rich, coastal states. A professor of mine once pointed out to me that in the environmental area, it's the environmental groups that need to do lobbying. The power company can just call up a Congress-critter and remind them of the thousands of jobs in their district that are tied to that company's well-being.)

snickerbockers 10y ago

A lot of people oppose government regulation on general principle.