3 ms·

> Of course one could argue that he's just acting in accordance with his principles, and that it's just a crazy coincidence that Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northr

> Of course one could argue that he's just acting in accordance with his principles, and that it's just a crazy coincidence that Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon -- the prime SLS contractors -- are among his top 20 campaign contributors That sounds a lot less scandalous when you realize that those top 20 campaign contributors listed aren't the companies themselves - the contributors are all employees of those companies. Companies are prohibited from making campaign contributions; all of those contributions are from the employees themselves, using after-tax money, and the only reason employer information is collected is to prove that companies aren't funneling money to campaigns under their employees' names. It's not surprising that employees of Lockheed Martin - the largest government contractor in the country - would support the candidacy of a politician who advocates awarding government contracts. What do you expect them to do - vote for a candidate who wants to eliminate government contracts? The idea that a politician takes actions in order to appease the people who voted for them (or persuade those who might vote for them) isn't scandalous; it's exactly what we'd expect in a healthy democracy. New York isn't a healthy democracy, which is why this doesn't happen in New York at all. So get back to the problem at hand, the issue with New York government specifically isn't that we have too much of this process - it's that New York politicians aren't accountable to voters at all in the first place, as I've explained throughout this thread, and as been documented by the New York Times in this and other articles.

nkoren 9y ago
No, what you've done is substitute "campaign contributors" for "voters". They're not the same thing, especially when those campaign contributions -- while they may originate with individuals -- are routed through PACs such as the "Lockheed Martin Employees' Political Action Committee (LMEPAC)", making it explicit what those contributions are buying (as opposed to, say, just being generally supportive of a candidate's political philosophy). Shelby is indeed responsive to his campaign contributors. He is not responsive to voters. Conflating those two things is the very essence of the corruption of American democracy. New York is really no different: politicians are responsive to their campaign contributors, not to voters. I'm not saying this to excuse New York: it's a serious problem there. But to say that this is a uniquely New York problem is completely wrong and fails to see the forest for the trees.
- chimeracoder 9y ago
  > Shelby is indeed responsive to his campaign contributors. He is not responsive to voters. New York is really no different: politicians are responsive to their campaign contributors, not to voters. That's where you're wrong. Campaign contributors have basically no influential power over New York politicians, any more than voters themselves do. Ironically, New York serves as a great counterpoint to your argument, because it has some of the strongest - if not the very strongest* public campaign finance laws in the entire country. > But to say that this is a uniquely New York problem is completely wrong and fails to see the forest for the trees. It sounds like you really don't understand the extent of the problems that exist in New York. Yes, it is a problem unique to New York, because no other state has a political system structured the way New York's is (and no other state has a government as corrupt as New York's is). But again, that's not because "bribery is legal", because (a) it's not, and (b) focusing on "bribery" misses the heart of the actual corruption problems that New York has.
  - nkoren 9y ago
    > Ironically, New York serves as a great counterpoint to your argument, because it has some of the strongest - if not the very strongest* public campaign finance laws in the entire country. There are limits to what individual donors can give, but politicians in New York can still receive unlimited campaign contributions in total.[1] This means that large companies and unions can pool their resources to buy influence, exactly as anywhere else. New York proves that well-regulated bribery is not any better than poorly-regulated bribery. > Campaign contributors have basically no influential power over New York politicians, any more than voters themselves do. So you're saying that the politicians in New York are not receiving substantial campaign contributions from the unions, consultancies, and contractors that are profiting from the 2nd Avenue Subway? Are you quite sure of that? 1: https://www.elections.ny.gov/CFContributionLimits.html https://www.elections.ny.gov/CFContributionLimits.html
    - chimeracoder 9y ago
      > There are limits to what individual donors can give, but politicians in New York can still receive unlimited campaign contributions in total.[1] This means that large companies and unions can pool their resources to buy influence, exactly as anywhere else. No, they can't, because corporations (including unions) can't contribute to political campaigns. If you know of a corporation (including a union) that's actually pooling their resources and giving them to campaigns or politicians, you should report it, because that is illegal. You can't keep asserting that that is legal - it's not. > So you're saying that the politicians in New York are not receiving substantial campaign contributions from the unions, consultancies, and contractors that are profiting from the 2nd Avenue Subway People who work at those companies might decide to donate their own money to politicians, yes. That doesn't mean they're buying special influence with them on behalf of their employers. I'm getting rather tired of this discussion, because you seem to be mostly interested in hammering away at the same (misguided) point about bribery, despite the fact that this very article outlines the evidence that unions don't need to bribe or buy politicians with money; they already hold that influence over elected officials, without needing to pay anything for it. If you'd like to keep pounding the same drum, there are plenty of other articles on which to do it, but it's a real distraction from the point at hand here, and I'm getting tired of carrying on a conversation about a point that's contradicted by the article were commenting on.

nkoren 9y ago

No, what you've done is substitute "campaign contributors" for "voters". They're not the same thing, especially when those campaign contributions -- while they may originate with individuals -- are routed through PACs such as the "Lockheed Martin Employees' Political Action Committee (LMEPAC)", making it explicit what those contributions are buying (as opposed to, say, just being generally supportive of a candidate's political philosophy). Shelby is indeed responsive to his campaign contributors. He is not responsive to voters. Conflating those two things is the very essence of the corruption of American democracy. New York is really no different: politicians are responsive to their campaign contributors, not to voters. I'm not saying this to excuse New York: it's a serious problem there. But to say that this is a uniquely New York problem is completely wrong and fails to see the forest for the trees.

chimeracoder 9y ago
> Shelby is indeed responsive to his campaign contributors. He is not responsive to voters. New York is really no different: politicians are responsive to their campaign contributors, not to voters. That's where you're wrong. Campaign contributors have basically no influential power over New York politicians, any more than voters themselves do. Ironically, New York serves as a great counterpoint to your argument, because it has some of the strongest - if not the very strongest* public campaign finance laws in the entire country. > But to say that this is a uniquely New York problem is completely wrong and fails to see the forest for the trees. It sounds like you really don't understand the extent of the problems that exist in New York. Yes, it is a problem unique to New York, because no other state has a political system structured the way New York's is (and no other state has a government as corrupt as New York's is). But again, that's not because "bribery is legal", because (a) it's not, and (b) focusing on "bribery" misses the heart of the actual corruption problems that New York has.
- nkoren 9y ago
  > Ironically, New York serves as a great counterpoint to your argument, because it has some of the strongest - if not the very strongest* public campaign finance laws in the entire country. There are limits to what individual donors can give, but politicians in New York can still receive unlimited campaign contributions in total.[1] This means that large companies and unions can pool their resources to buy influence, exactly as anywhere else. New York proves that well-regulated bribery is not any better than poorly-regulated bribery. > Campaign contributors have basically no influential power over New York politicians, any more than voters themselves do. So you're saying that the politicians in New York are not receiving substantial campaign contributions from the unions, consultancies, and contractors that are profiting from the 2nd Avenue Subway? Are you quite sure of that? 1: https://www.elections.ny.gov/CFContributionLimits.html https://www.elections.ny.gov/CFContributionLimits.html
  - chimeracoder 9y ago
    > There are limits to what individual donors can give, but politicians in New York can still receive unlimited campaign contributions in total.[1] This means that large companies and unions can pool their resources to buy influence, exactly as anywhere else. No, they can't, because corporations (including unions) can't contribute to political campaigns. If you know of a corporation (including a union) that's actually pooling their resources and giving them to campaigns or politicians, you should report it, because that is illegal. You can't keep asserting that that is legal - it's not. > So you're saying that the politicians in New York are not receiving substantial campaign contributions from the unions, consultancies, and contractors that are profiting from the 2nd Avenue Subway People who work at those companies might decide to donate their own money to politicians, yes. That doesn't mean they're buying special influence with them on behalf of their employers. I'm getting rather tired of this discussion, because you seem to be mostly interested in hammering away at the same (misguided) point about bribery, despite the fact that this very article outlines the evidence that unions don't need to bribe or buy politicians with money; they already hold that influence over elected officials, without needing to pay anything for it. If you'd like to keep pounding the same drum, there are plenty of other articles on which to do it, but it's a real distraction from the point at hand here, and I'm getting tired of carrying on a conversation about a point that's contradicted by the article were commenting on.