4 ms·

Here's a thought: why are we pressuring legislators when they're mostly accountable to their donors and party bosses? Why don't these sites track those people

Here's a thought: why are we pressuring legislators when they're mostly accountable to their donors and party bosses? Why don't these sites track those people instead?

pjmorris 10y ago
Why not both? We could even use the data to custom-make the NASCAR-style suits people talk about, with decals for each rep's sponsorship.
DannyBee 10y ago
"when they're mostly accountable to their donors and party bosses" Because this is mostly a myth.
- mtgx 10y ago
  No, it's not. It's proven that Congress abides by corporations' wishes 70% of the time, and it abides by the "People's" wishes close to 0% of the time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig
  - 557833 10y ago
    That video fails to mention that those numbers only apply to the very small (6% iirc) minority of issues where there's a statistically significant difference of opinion between "the people" and the rich. Also, the paper doesn't ascribe any reason for the effect. All that stuff about campaign finance is just editorializing from that video. It's just as possible that, for example, wealth and education are well correlated and Congress is siding with the well-educated 6% of the time.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    The reality is that right now they are often accountable to their donors and party bosses, but that is only because the public has ceded their power in those cases by not caring enough and/or consistently enough. They are ultimately accountable to the public, to an overwhelming degree. When the public does not care, that allows the other influences, which are ultimately much smaller to have an outsized influence. By not being consistent in caring about the outcomes of votes, the public has allowed other groups to not only have an influence, but to have it often. That trains representatives to consider those other groups on all votes, as those other groups are much better about keeping track of what the representatives do and holding them accountable later. So in the end, a small and weak but consistent group ends up having a disproportionate amount of influence compared to a large and powerful but largely inconsistent and absent group. What this means is that it both is, and is not a myth. It's true that donors and party bosses have a lot of power, but it's also true that the constituents control all the power, and it's only their lack of involvement that allows those donors and party bosses to have the power they do. Were constituents to become much more interested in everything their representative did starting tomorrow, the power of those donors and party bosses would vanish fairly quickly (depending on how likely the representative considered the increased interest to continue).
- aantix 10y ago
  Citation?
  - DannyBee 10y ago
    You mean like the original had? The truth is congress does what donors/etc ask when people don't ask them otherwise. So it only happens on a small set of issues where people don't seem to care. Additionally, the mechanism that causes this is not actually the money. It's nice to think that, but it's really: They don't understand the issue, they mostly trust the lobbyists they know to tell them what the good thing to be doing is. IE the lobbyists are long time friends.
- orthecreedence 10y ago
  "If I close my eyes tight enough, the corruption will go away!"
TheAdamAndChe 10y ago
Because a lot of these donations are through super PACs, which can't be traced.
paxcoder 10y ago
You can't wash your hands and blame everything on Satan. You are a human being with your own free will, responsible for your own choices. The legislators are morally responsible for the laws they support.

Here's a thought: why are we pressuring legislators when they're mostly accountable to their donors and party bosses? Why don't these sites track those people instead?

pjmorris 10y ago

Why not both? We could even use the data to custom-make the NASCAR-style suits people talk about, with decals for each rep's sponsorship.

DannyBee 10y ago

"when they're mostly accountable to their donors and party bosses" Because this is mostly a myth.

mtgx 10y ago
No, it's not. It's proven that Congress abides by corporations' wishes 70% of the time, and it abides by the "People's" wishes close to 0% of the time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig
- 557833 10y ago
  That video fails to mention that those numbers only apply to the very small (6% iirc) minority of issues where there's a statistically significant difference of opinion between "the people" and the rich. Also, the paper doesn't ascribe any reason for the effect. All that stuff about campaign finance is just editorializing from that video. It's just as possible that, for example, wealth and education are well correlated and Congress is siding with the well-educated 6% of the time.
- kbenson 10y ago
  The reality is that right now they are often accountable to their donors and party bosses, but that is only because the public has ceded their power in those cases by not caring enough and/or consistently enough. They are ultimately accountable to the public, to an overwhelming degree. When the public does not care, that allows the other influences, which are ultimately much smaller to have an outsized influence. By not being consistent in caring about the outcomes of votes, the public has allowed other groups to not only have an influence, but to have it often. That trains representatives to consider those other groups on all votes, as those other groups are much better about keeping track of what the representatives do and holding them accountable later. So in the end, a small and weak but consistent group ends up having a disproportionate amount of influence compared to a large and powerful but largely inconsistent and absent group. What this means is that it both is, and is not a myth. It's true that donors and party bosses have a lot of power, but it's also true that the constituents control all the power, and it's only their lack of involvement that allows those donors and party bosses to have the power they do. Were constituents to become much more interested in everything their representative did starting tomorrow, the power of those donors and party bosses would vanish fairly quickly (depending on how likely the representative considered the increased interest to continue).
aantix 10y ago
Citation?
- DannyBee 10y ago
  You mean like the original had? The truth is congress does what donors/etc ask when people don't ask them otherwise. So it only happens on a small set of issues where people don't seem to care. Additionally, the mechanism that causes this is not actually the money. It's nice to think that, but it's really: They don't understand the issue, they mostly trust the lobbyists they know to tell them what the good thing to be doing is. IE the lobbyists are long time friends.
orthecreedence 10y ago
"If I close my eyes tight enough, the corruption will go away!"

TheAdamAndChe 10y ago

Because a lot of these donations are through super PACs, which can't be traced.

paxcoder 10y ago

You can't wash your hands and blame everything on Satan. You are a human being with your own free will, responsible for your own choices. The legislators are morally responsible for the laws they support.