4 ms·
> Are most of these representatives just willfully corrupt? Yes, but they prefer the terms "lobbying" and "campaign contributions". While theoretically they a
by 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 agoIt's illegal for corporations to make campaign donations. McDonnell has nothing to do with that.
- pdkl95 10y agoIf 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".