7 ms·

This is interesting. I wonder why only Republicans are targeted consistently for these types of laws that are blatantly bad for consumers and why it works on th

This is interesting. I wonder why only Republicans are targeted consistently for these types of laws that are blatantly bad for consumers and why it works on them. However, I am sure money has been offered to Democrats but what's the reason it never sticks?

smt88 9y ago
It sticks. It's just different industries. Democrats are beholden to Wall St, Hollywood/music (see: RIAA), and special-interest groups. Silicon Valley also seems to be getting better at influencing Democrats. It definitely is lopsided, and Republicans are clearly more anti-consumer, but no national politician survives by betraying big donors.
- jenga22 9y ago
  Doesn't seem true. For example, the Frank Dod Act was passed by Democrats and Wall St. hates that law. Another example, the Consumer Protection Bureau. Another agency that Wall St. hates which was passed by Democrats. If anything, it seems that again Republicans are happy to pass laws that lowers taxes for Wall St. and removes regulation. To your point, Wall St. donates to Democrats but it seems to have very limited effect compared to Republicans.
  - x0x0 9y ago
    I dunno, I think Wall St donations to dems have plenty of affects. See eg Wasserman Schultz and payday lenders.
    - x0x0 9y ago
      effects rather. I shouldn't post when tired.
  - camelite 9y ago
    The fact that an act was passed after the greatest bubble pop since the great depression shouldnt be enough to convince you that dems as a whole arent beholden to wall street. they had zero choice but to do SOMETHING. look instead to what they did before the crash. compare what they did to what they could have done. look at what happened to proposals to do more. look at wall street profits a year after the crisis. look at the doners. less beholden than the reps, probably. not beholden at all? no
  - richardknop 9y ago
    Frank Dod Act is a ridiculously watered down version of regulation that was originally proposed. Wall Street lobbyists made Democrats nerf it to the point it's almost meaningless. So I would say that Democrats have been very good to bankers in this particular case. For optics reasons (it was right after the financial crisis) something had to be done and this was the best possible scenario for bankers so I'd say they were glad with it under the circumstances.
    - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
      > Wall Street lobbyists made Democrats nerf it to the point it's almost meaningless This is wrong. Was Dodd Frank reduced in scope and severity from its first drafting? Yes. Does that amount to watering it down to meaninglessness? No. The bits that stuck have bite. Some bits had, in my opinion, more bite than merit.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
antisthenes 9y ago
Democrats have their own corporate patrons, like the healthcare companies. They were just as happy to sell you out when they voted for the ACA (which is working for now, but will eventually fuck over a lot of middle class Americans who aren't getting insurance through their employer).
- geofft 9y ago
  The ACA was based on a 1989 Republican-backed proposal and on Massachusetts' Republican-backed health care law ("Romneycare"), designed to be a more corporate-friendly version of a single-payer plan that accomplishes many of the same goals. Obama adopted it in order to get bipartisan support, not because he had any impression the individual mandate was good for individuals. Any narrative that the Democrats have health insurers as their patrons and Republicans do not needs to account for facts of history like this one: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Equity_and_Access_Reform_Today_Act_of_1993 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Equity_and_Access_Ref... (The argument that both parties would have loved the individual mandate, and merely fought over it for political points as a show for voters, is at least consistent with objective history.)
smallnamespace 9y ago
The sad truth is that most politicians aren't going to win elections without corporate money. Think about it this way: the attention of voters is limited and expensive. Therefore communicating with them is a costly commodity. Right now it is controlled by media organizations, and the only way for politicians to pay that cost is (1) out of their own pockets (if they're independently wealthy), (2) out of corporate pockets, or (3) out of the pockets of excited and motivated party partisans. Most people don't like (1) for obvious reasons -- it's easy to bash the rich as being elitist and out of touch. (3) has a chicken-and-egg problem of how a politician can reach people if they don't have any money initially to bootstrap the process. It also leads to politicians saying really controversial and divisive things to get the base excited -- the base's interests don't always align with the general electorate's. So either we actually enact strong campaign finance reform (good luck getting that past the Supreme Court), we stop electing politicians that took corporate money, or we have robust public funding for elections so politicians don't need corporate money.
- danpalmer 9y ago
  That is, in the current system. In the UK there are strict limits on campaign spending that get investigated and enforced, and the limits are low enough that individual contributions are important and corporate donations can only go so far.
  - laythea 9y ago
    Erm abuse of this happened recently with no consequences. Please don't speak like the UK is any better. People are all the same. See https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/16/conservatives-fined-70000-for-campaign-spending-failures https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/16/conservativ...
    - willvarfar 9y ago
      Well, objectively the UK does seem better.
    - emn13 9y ago
xupybd 9y ago
Some people genuinely believe free markets are the best thing for consumers. I’m all for net neutrality but I don’t think every politician is a sell out for voting against, they were voting according to their beliefs.
- ksec 9y ago
  Is there any case in history that a true free markets has actually worked? ( If it is truly free, why bail out those deemed too large to fail? )
  - alehul 9y ago
    As an answer to bailouts: That was largely not a Republican nor free-market-supporting move if I recall correctly. While new and more innovative companies would likely take the bankrupt companies' place, there would be a harsh transition period in which blame would be placed on the Democratic leadership at the time. Plus, regardless of partisanship, it's tough even for those who support free markets to knowingly thrust thousands of constituents into immediate unemployment, both morally and for re-elective purposes.
  - xupybd 9y ago
    The bail outs were the exact opposite of free markets. That was massive government manipulation of the market.
  - joeblow9999 9y ago
    Your rhetorical question aside, it is still true that Some people genuinely believe free markets are the best thing for consumers.
- danielovichdk 9y ago
  Who set the rules for the socalled free markets? Government(s).
boomboomsubban 9y ago
It sticks just fine. In this example the Democrats oppose this one issue, but voted to give the ISPs billions in stimulus funding and protected them from lawsuits by passing the privacy killing CISA bill. You don't need to support 100% of their interests to be in their pockets.
- DanielBMarkham 9y ago
  This is an excellent point and needs to be included in every discussion of U.S. politics. If there are only two parties, you give heavily to both. Then you find ways each party can "win" or "lose" while your cause advances. In this fashion each political party can continue its public drama of fighting the other one, all the while your interests advance in various ways -- just not the same way all the time.
  - mitchellberry 9y ago
    Boolean outcomes everytime.
- Chathamization 9y ago
  Though even in the case of CISA, you have far more Republicans than Democrats voting in favor of it and far more Democrats than Republicans voting against it.
  - cptskippy 9y ago
    Republicans are the current majority and politicians vote along party lines. So it seems like it would be easier to sway the majority party and a few of the opposition than targeting each senator individually.
    - guelo 9y ago
      The Republican's anti-regulation ideology is also an anti-consumer-protection ideology. The idea is that if you let companies abuse their customers then other companies will want to get in on it and will eventually magically produce the most optimal efficient outcome for society as a whole. It's basically a religion because it is not backed by any real research or science. It also just so happens to align with the interest of giant corporations.
joewrong 9y ago
I wonder if it's money better spent on the majority party that can actually pass legislation.

smt88 9y ago

It sticks. It's just different industries. Democrats are beholden to Wall St, Hollywood/music (see: RIAA), and special-interest groups. Silicon Valley also seems to be getting better at influencing Democrats. It definitely is lopsided, and Republicans are clearly more anti-consumer, but no national politician survives by betraying big donors.

jenga22 9y ago
Doesn't seem true. For example, the Frank Dod Act was passed by Democrats and Wall St. hates that law. Another example, the Consumer Protection Bureau. Another agency that Wall St. hates which was passed by Democrats. If anything, it seems that again Republicans are happy to pass laws that lowers taxes for Wall St. and removes regulation. To your point, Wall St. donates to Democrats but it seems to have very limited effect compared to Republicans.
- x0x0 9y ago
  I dunno, I think Wall St donations to dems have plenty of affects. See eg Wasserman Schultz and payday lenders.
  - x0x0 9y ago
    effects rather. I shouldn't post when tired.
- camelite 9y ago
  The fact that an act was passed after the greatest bubble pop since the great depression shouldnt be enough to convince you that dems as a whole arent beholden to wall street. they had zero choice but to do SOMETHING. look instead to what they did before the crash. compare what they did to what they could have done. look at what happened to proposals to do more. look at wall street profits a year after the crisis. look at the doners. less beholden than the reps, probably. not beholden at all? no
- richardknop 9y ago
  Frank Dod Act is a ridiculously watered down version of regulation that was originally proposed. Wall Street lobbyists made Democrats nerf it to the point it's almost meaningless. So I would say that Democrats have been very good to bankers in this particular case. For optics reasons (it was right after the financial crisis) something had to be done and this was the best possible scenario for bankers so I'd say they were glad with it under the circumstances.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > Wall Street lobbyists made Democrats nerf it to the point it's almost meaningless This is wrong. Was Dodd Frank reduced in scope and severity from its first drafting? Yes. Does that amount to watering it down to meaninglessness? No. The bits that stuck have bite. Some bits had, in my opinion, more bite than merit.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

antisthenes 9y ago

Democrats have their own corporate patrons, like the healthcare companies. They were just as happy to sell you out when they voted for the ACA (which is working for now, but will eventually fuck over a lot of middle class Americans who aren't getting insurance through their employer).

geofft 9y ago
The ACA was based on a 1989 Republican-backed proposal and on Massachusetts' Republican-backed health care law ("Romneycare"), designed to be a more corporate-friendly version of a single-payer plan that accomplishes many of the same goals. Obama adopted it in order to get bipartisan support, not because he had any impression the individual mandate was good for individuals. Any narrative that the Democrats have health insurers as their patrons and Republicans do not needs to account for facts of history like this one: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Equity_and_Access_Reform_Today_Act_of_1993 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Equity_and_Access_Ref... (The argument that both parties would have loved the individual mandate, and merely fought over it for political points as a show for voters, is at least consistent with objective history.)

smallnamespace 9y ago

The sad truth is that most politicians aren't going to win elections without corporate money. Think about it this way: the attention of voters is limited and expensive. Therefore communicating with them is a costly commodity. Right now it is controlled by media organizations, and the only way for politicians to pay that cost is (1) out of their own pockets (if they're independently wealthy), (2) out of corporate pockets, or (3) out of the pockets of excited and motivated party partisans. Most people don't like (1) for obvious reasons -- it's easy to bash the rich as being elitist and out of touch. (3) has a chicken-and-egg problem of how a politician can reach people if they don't have any money initially to bootstrap the process. It also leads to politicians saying really controversial and divisive things to get the base excited -- the base's interests don't always align with the general electorate's. So either we actually enact strong campaign finance reform (good luck getting that past the Supreme Court), we stop electing politicians that took corporate money, or we have robust public funding for elections so politicians don't need corporate money.

danpalmer 9y ago
That is, in the current system. In the UK there are strict limits on campaign spending that get investigated and enforced, and the limits are low enough that individual contributions are important and corporate donations can only go so far.
- laythea 9y ago
  Erm abuse of this happened recently with no consequences. Please don't speak like the UK is any better. People are all the same. See https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/16/conservatives-fined-70000-for-campaign-spending-failures https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/16/conservativ...
  - willvarfar 9y ago
    Well, objectively the UK does seem better.
  - emn13 9y ago

xupybd 9y ago

Some people genuinely believe free markets are the best thing for consumers. I’m all for net neutrality but I don’t think every politician is a sell out for voting against, they were voting according to their beliefs.

ksec 9y ago
Is there any case in history that a true free markets has actually worked? ( If it is truly free, why bail out those deemed too large to fail? )
- alehul 9y ago
  As an answer to bailouts: That was largely not a Republican nor free-market-supporting move if I recall correctly. While new and more innovative companies would likely take the bankrupt companies' place, there would be a harsh transition period in which blame would be placed on the Democratic leadership at the time. Plus, regardless of partisanship, it's tough even for those who support free markets to knowingly thrust thousands of constituents into immediate unemployment, both morally and for re-elective purposes.
- xupybd 9y ago
  The bail outs were the exact opposite of free markets. That was massive government manipulation of the market.
- joeblow9999 9y ago
  Your rhetorical question aside, it is still true that Some people genuinely believe free markets are the best thing for consumers.
danielovichdk 9y ago
Who set the rules for the socalled free markets? Government(s).

boomboomsubban 9y ago

It sticks just fine. In this example the Democrats oppose this one issue, but voted to give the ISPs billions in stimulus funding and protected them from lawsuits by passing the privacy killing CISA bill. You don't need to support 100% of their interests to be in their pockets.

DanielBMarkham 9y ago
This is an excellent point and needs to be included in every discussion of U.S. politics. If there are only two parties, you give heavily to both. Then you find ways each party can "win" or "lose" while your cause advances. In this fashion each political party can continue its public drama of fighting the other one, all the while your interests advance in various ways -- just not the same way all the time.
- mitchellberry 9y ago
  Boolean outcomes everytime.
Chathamization 9y ago
Though even in the case of CISA, you have far more Republicans than Democrats voting in favor of it and far more Democrats than Republicans voting against it.
- cptskippy 9y ago
  Republicans are the current majority and politicians vote along party lines. So it seems like it would be easier to sway the majority party and a few of the opposition than targeting each senator individually.
  - guelo 9y ago
    The Republican's anti-regulation ideology is also an anti-consumer-protection ideology. The idea is that if you let companies abuse their customers then other companies will want to get in on it and will eventually magically produce the most optimal efficient outcome for society as a whole. It's basically a religion because it is not backed by any real research or science. It also just so happens to align with the interest of giant corporations.

joewrong 9y ago

I wonder if it's money better spent on the majority party that can actually pass legislation.