5 ms·

I am actually amazed at how little money is needed to influence politicians. Lobbying exists because the return on investment is ridiculously high in favor of

I am actually amazed at how little money is needed to influence politicians. Lobbying exists because the return on investment is ridiculously high in favor of person asking for favorable treatment from politicians in policy making. It is peanuts invested and Boeing 747s harvested. If anything the cost of buying a politician should increase multiple orders of magnitude. Currently hundred, two hundred thousands to a senator's re-election campaign can buy really serious attention to your concerns. It needs to be hundreds of millions to buy a senator. Politicians should start Patreon campaigns to get livable wages from supporters and then just execute on what they stand for. Bernie and Trump was essentially that, self/people funded efforts.

ssambros 9y ago
> If anything the cost of buying a politician should increase multiple orders of magnitude. How about lowering the possible returns from buying politicians, say, by lowering their influence on how the republic is actually being run?
- adrianratnapala 9y ago
  I guess ssambros is being downvoted because it seems tautological that politicians run the Republic. But we really should stop to ask whether legislatures should be doing the kind of micromanagement where they routinely divert billions towards one private interest or another. And we should adjust our political rhetoric, voting behaviour and expectations about propriety and the law accordingly.
- vec 9y ago
  Because then the money just moves to whoever does have influence on how the republic is actually being run. Or, worse yet, the money just buys the power it was previously trying to influence and simply wields it directly. Weakening the formal power of government officials doesn't make that power dissolve, it just displaces it to somewhere even less visible and answerable to the public.
NTDF9 9y ago
>> Politicians should start Patreon campaigns to get livable wages from supporters and then just execute on what they stand for. They'll just seek more and more funds to become richer and richer. This is how corrupt democracies work. The only people who should be politicians are the ones who'd do it with no campaign funds and median wage. They need to be in touch with realities of their electoral base and have the desire to change it for everyone.
- craftyguy 9y ago
  > The only people who should be politicians are the ones who'd do it with no campaign funds and median wage Perhaps a better way to phrase this is to only allow candidates who make within, say, 10% of the median wage for their district, and they would only get paid median wage in office.
  - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
    I don't know, that sounds arbitrarily limiting. Everyone should be allowed to participate. I just think that technology has allowed to seek support and sustenance while one fights for a cause. When the support is gone, you go back to earning your living. No strings attached in either direction. Employment of representative, and continuous patronage by the represented, at will.
- AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  >The only people who should be politicians are the ones who'd do it with no campaign funds and median wage. I wholeheartedly disagree. Representing people is full time job and must be paid living wages. People competing to represent people deserve to get funding to support living expenses while they run their campaigns. Do you want a factory worker delivering pizza at night to represent people like him? If so, then he needs funding so that he can put food on the table while he tries to get elected. If people don't crowdfund it then there is no other option but to seek lobbyist money. No different than soldiers and police and firefighters. The problem is that there is not enough turn over of representatives. More people being able to get living expenses crowdfunded mean there will be more competition for representatives, competition to win and keep supporters, not a competition to seek and win lobbying funding in support of re-election.
TearsInTheRain 9y ago
> Politicians should start Patreon campaigns to get livable wages from supporters and then just execute on what they stand for. How little do you think politicians make? I don't know of any poor politicians at the federal level.
- leesalminen 9y ago
  Average net worth is $1MM [0]. Funny how they're "representative" of the people when median income is $35k/year [1] and most Americans don't have $1k in savings [2]. [0] http://moneynation.com/the-net-worth-of-congress/ http://moneynation.com/the-net-worth-of-congress/ [1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2016/11/24/average-american-household-income/93002252/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2016/11... [2] https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/09/25/how-much-does-the-average-american-have-in-their-s.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/09/25/how-much-does-the-...
- AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  Politicians are looking for people to represent. Democrats in 2016 was textbook example of that. Not the kind of people I was referring to in my comment. To be fair to you, I did say "Politicians should...". I would like to rephrase that as Representatives among people should start patreon campaigns. People should choose a person among them to represent them and really believes in what they want, not give in to an professional politician looking to represent you no matter what their individual beliefs.
unabridged 9y ago
You just need to increase the number of representatives multiple orders of magnitude. Imagine if we had 10000+ congressmen, it would much much harder to buy influence or lobby. The votes would eventually start to resemble the will of the people. Bernie and Trump were just the beginning, the internet has allowed the people to wake up and field their own candidates instead of just taking what the political old guard give us.
- AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  >Imagine if we had 10000+ congressmen, it would much much harder to buy influence or lobby. The votes would eventually start to resemble the will of the people. I agree, but there would be interesting ramifications. Almost like direct democracy but not quite there. So, essentially you have to earn the right to vote. Very close to what founders thought who should be voting. Mind blown!
  - padobson 9y ago
    The Reapportionment Act of 1929[0] is the culprit for this problem. Up until then, the size of the house grew with the population of the country. It was one of a series of early 20th century foundational changes to American government that opened us up for the legalized corruption we're suffering from now. The 17th amendment[1] is another, which allowed for the direct election (and thus hyper politicization) of Senators. With 50 states, the country would still have 100 senators, but special interest groups would have to write checks to thousands of state assembly members to influence the election of Senators, rather than just writing a few dozen to influence the Senators directly. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929 [1]https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am17.html https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am17.html
    - thoth 9y ago
      >The 17th amendment[1] is another, which allowed for the direct election (and thus hyper politicization) of Senators. The time before the 17th Amendment wasn't exactly all roses, that was the age of outright bribery of state legislatures for Senate seats. William Clark's famous quote "I never bought a man who wasn't for sale" was about this and the surrounding corruption of his election brought the 17th Amendment around.[0] Listen to the 6th episode of the Constitutional podcast for some extra background, it is very interesting. Some states really wanted this because they were unable to even elect Senators due to political parties of the time simply not agreeing on anybody.[1] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Clark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Clark [1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/podcasts/constitutional/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/podcasts/constitutional/
jdavis703 9y ago
> Politicians should start Patreon campaigns That's kind of what CrowdPAC (https://www.crowdpac.com/ https://www.crowdpac.com/) already does. Even though I'd say it's more like GoFundMe than Patreon. It'll be interesting if people starting creating campaigns like "Vote for H.R. 9999 and get all the money from this crowdfunded campaign."
tetraodonpuffer 9y ago
> Politicians should start Patreon campaigns to get livable wages from supporters and then just execute on what they stand for. if somebody dangles 6-7 figure checks in front of many people, those people will find that their former concept of "livable wage" has suddenly been revised upwards. If a politician is honest they can be honest within the lobbying framework or outside of it, the issue I think is making it so a honest politician with no access to extra funds can compete on issues against a well funded opponent (meaning getting people to know who they are without having to buy tons of ads): this can only happen if election campaigns are extremely regulated. Doing that would mean things like no ads for anybody ever, only exposure via live debates, fixed identical travel schedule for everybody with access to the same rallies in terms of facilities etc. etc. Even with all of this I am not sure it would work in the current social-media society, because as things stand now if you are well funded you could easily drown your opponent(s) on social media just by buying comments/influence and regulating those seems pretty much impossible (how do you distinguish between a genuine groundswell of support and a paid-for one?)
- AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  >if somebody dangles 6-7 figure checks in front of many people, those people will find that their former concept of "livable wage" has suddenly been revised upwards. yes, but next serious challenger would be just $4500/month patreon campaign away. The revolving glass door would remain a problem where someone seeks one time election, votes a certain way and is then given a advisory job at a think tank for couple of years. But at least, they would be able to burn people just once, instead of what we have now. Plus people may use recalls often.

ssambros 9y ago

> If anything the cost of buying a politician should increase multiple orders of magnitude. How about lowering the possible returns from buying politicians, say, by lowering their influence on how the republic is actually being run?

adrianratnapala 9y ago
I guess ssambros is being downvoted because it seems tautological that politicians run the Republic. But we really should stop to ask whether legislatures should be doing the kind of micromanagement where they routinely divert billions towards one private interest or another. And we should adjust our political rhetoric, voting behaviour and expectations about propriety and the law accordingly.
vec 9y ago
Because then the money just moves to whoever does have influence on how the republic is actually being run. Or, worse yet, the money just buys the power it was previously trying to influence and simply wields it directly. Weakening the formal power of government officials doesn't make that power dissolve, it just displaces it to somewhere even less visible and answerable to the public.

NTDF9 9y ago

>> Politicians should start Patreon campaigns to get livable wages from supporters and then just execute on what they stand for. They'll just seek more and more funds to become richer and richer. This is how corrupt democracies work. The only people who should be politicians are the ones who'd do it with no campaign funds and median wage. They need to be in touch with realities of their electoral base and have the desire to change it for everyone.

craftyguy 9y ago
> The only people who should be politicians are the ones who'd do it with no campaign funds and median wage Perhaps a better way to phrase this is to only allow candidates who make within, say, 10% of the median wage for their district, and they would only get paid median wage in office.
- AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  I don't know, that sounds arbitrarily limiting. Everyone should be allowed to participate. I just think that technology has allowed to seek support and sustenance while one fights for a cause. When the support is gone, you go back to earning your living. No strings attached in either direction. Employment of representative, and continuous patronage by the represented, at will.
AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
>The only people who should be politicians are the ones who'd do it with no campaign funds and median wage. I wholeheartedly disagree. Representing people is full time job and must be paid living wages. People competing to represent people deserve to get funding to support living expenses while they run their campaigns. Do you want a factory worker delivering pizza at night to represent people like him? If so, then he needs funding so that he can put food on the table while he tries to get elected. If people don't crowdfund it then there is no other option but to seek lobbyist money. No different than soldiers and police and firefighters. The problem is that there is not enough turn over of representatives. More people being able to get living expenses crowdfunded mean there will be more competition for representatives, competition to win and keep supporters, not a competition to seek and win lobbying funding in support of re-election.

TearsInTheRain 9y ago

> Politicians should start Patreon campaigns to get livable wages from supporters and then just execute on what they stand for. How little do you think politicians make? I don't know of any poor politicians at the federal level.

leesalminen 9y ago
Average net worth is $1MM [0]. Funny how they're "representative" of the people when median income is $35k/year [1] and most Americans don't have $1k in savings [2]. [0] http://moneynation.com/the-net-worth-of-congress/ http://moneynation.com/the-net-worth-of-congress/ [1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2016/11/24/average-american-household-income/93002252/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2016/11... [2] https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/09/25/how-much-does-the-average-american-have-in-their-s.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/09/25/how-much-does-the-...
AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
Politicians are looking for people to represent. Democrats in 2016 was textbook example of that. Not the kind of people I was referring to in my comment. To be fair to you, I did say "Politicians should...". I would like to rephrase that as Representatives among people should start patreon campaigns. People should choose a person among them to represent them and really believes in what they want, not give in to an professional politician looking to represent you no matter what their individual beliefs.

unabridged 9y ago

You just need to increase the number of representatives multiple orders of magnitude. Imagine if we had 10000+ congressmen, it would much much harder to buy influence or lobby. The votes would eventually start to resemble the will of the people. Bernie and Trump were just the beginning, the internet has allowed the people to wake up and field their own candidates instead of just taking what the political old guard give us.

AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
>Imagine if we had 10000+ congressmen, it would much much harder to buy influence or lobby. The votes would eventually start to resemble the will of the people. I agree, but there would be interesting ramifications. Almost like direct democracy but not quite there. So, essentially you have to earn the right to vote. Very close to what founders thought who should be voting. Mind blown!
- padobson 9y ago
  The Reapportionment Act of 1929[0] is the culprit for this problem. Up until then, the size of the house grew with the population of the country. It was one of a series of early 20th century foundational changes to American government that opened us up for the legalized corruption we're suffering from now. The 17th amendment[1] is another, which allowed for the direct election (and thus hyper politicization) of Senators. With 50 states, the country would still have 100 senators, but special interest groups would have to write checks to thousands of state assembly members to influence the election of Senators, rather than just writing a few dozen to influence the Senators directly. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929 [1]https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am17.html https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am17.html
  - thoth 9y ago
    >The 17th amendment[1] is another, which allowed for the direct election (and thus hyper politicization) of Senators. The time before the 17th Amendment wasn't exactly all roses, that was the age of outright bribery of state legislatures for Senate seats. William Clark's famous quote "I never bought a man who wasn't for sale" was about this and the surrounding corruption of his election brought the 17th Amendment around.[0] Listen to the 6th episode of the Constitutional podcast for some extra background, it is very interesting. Some states really wanted this because they were unable to even elect Senators due to political parties of the time simply not agreeing on anybody.[1] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Clark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Clark [1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/podcasts/constitutional/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/podcasts/constitutional/

jdavis703 9y ago

> Politicians should start Patreon campaigns That's kind of what CrowdPAC (https://www.crowdpac.com/ https://www.crowdpac.com/) already does. Even though I'd say it's more like GoFundMe than Patreon. It'll be interesting if people starting creating campaigns like "Vote for H.R. 9999 and get all the money from this crowdfunded campaign."

tetraodonpuffer 9y ago

> Politicians should start Patreon campaigns to get livable wages from supporters and then just execute on what they stand for. if somebody dangles 6-7 figure checks in front of many people, those people will find that their former concept of "livable wage" has suddenly been revised upwards. If a politician is honest they can be honest within the lobbying framework or outside of it, the issue I think is making it so a honest politician with no access to extra funds can compete on issues against a well funded opponent (meaning getting people to know who they are without having to buy tons of ads): this can only happen if election campaigns are extremely regulated. Doing that would mean things like no ads for anybody ever, only exposure via live debates, fixed identical travel schedule for everybody with access to the same rallies in terms of facilities etc. etc. Even with all of this I am not sure it would work in the current social-media society, because as things stand now if you are well funded you could easily drown your opponent(s) on social media just by buying comments/influence and regulating those seems pretty much impossible (how do you distinguish between a genuine groundswell of support and a paid-for one?)

AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
>if somebody dangles 6-7 figure checks in front of many people, those people will find that their former concept of "livable wage" has suddenly been revised upwards. yes, but next serious challenger would be just $4500/month patreon campaign away. The revolving glass door would remain a problem where someone seeks one time election, votes a certain way and is then given a advisory job at a think tank for couple of years. But at least, they would be able to burn people just once, instead of what we have now. Plus people may use recalls often.