3 ms·

> Additionally, it’s important to note that the communications industry is one of the largest lobbying groups in US history; internet providers and the telephon

> Additionally, it’s important to note that the communications industry is one of the largest lobbying groups in US history; internet providers and the telephone companies before them are notorious for spreading wealth across the aisle. Regardless, one party seems more responsive to the industry’s demands. Ok, so ISPs give money to all of Congress, and every single representative in the list is a Republican. Sounds like the vote happened along party lines, then? But does that not invalidate the article's entire thesis? Maybe if they listed the representatives who voted against the bill, and showed that there is a significant difference in contributions, it would support their thesis. But they don't do that.

smt88 9y ago
I don't disagree, but voting "no" or abstaining is not the strongest form of resistance. Ethical Democrats could/should do more.
boomboomsubban 9y ago
There are multiple bills in recent years that have benefitted ISPs. They also were in favor of CISA to avoid any possible legal issues from a disregard of your privacy rights, and that passed with large support from the Democrats. Individual bills can follow party lines, but they're all helping the ISPs.
tzs 9y ago
> But does that not invalidate the article's entire thesis? Maybe if they listed the representatives who voted against the bill, and showed that there is a significant difference in contributions, it would support their thesis. But they don't do that. A significant difference would not so much support their thesis as fail to support the negation of their thesis. What articles such as this almost never consider is that donors might choose which politicians to donate to and how much to donate based on the publicly stated positions of the politician and the politician's party, that politician's past votes, and the general political philosophy of the politician and party. If we banned all political donations, and put a limit on political spending by the candidates or on behalf of the candidates, switching to funding campaigns entirely out of public money, a bill like this would STILL be largely supported by Republicans and largely opposed by Democrats because of their philosophical differences.

smt88 9y ago

I don't disagree, but voting "no" or abstaining is not the strongest form of resistance. Ethical Democrats could/should do more.

boomboomsubban 9y ago

There are multiple bills in recent years that have benefitted ISPs. They also were in favor of CISA to avoid any possible legal issues from a disregard of your privacy rights, and that passed with large support from the Democrats. Individual bills can follow party lines, but they're all helping the ISPs.

tzs 9y ago

> But does that not invalidate the article's entire thesis? Maybe if they listed the representatives who voted against the bill, and showed that there is a significant difference in contributions, it would support their thesis. But they don't do that. A significant difference would not so much support their thesis as fail to support the negation of their thesis. What articles such as this almost never consider is that donors might choose which politicians to donate to and how much to donate based on the publicly stated positions of the politician and the politician's party, that politician's past votes, and the general political philosophy of the politician and party. If we banned all political donations, and put a limit on political spending by the candidates or on behalf of the candidates, switching to funding campaigns entirely out of public money, a bill like this would STILL be largely supported by Republicans and largely opposed by Democrats because of their philosophical differences.