3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
  - snark42 9y ago
    > 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. And the company might decide they deserve an extra Christmas bonus equal to their contributions to candidates the company likes plus enough to cover the income taxes... It was however, a discretionary bonus available to all employees. It might not be legal, but it happens all the time.
    - chimeracoder 9y ago
      > And the company might decide they deserve an extra Christmas bonus equal to their contributions to candidates the company likes plus enough to cover the income taxes... It was however, a discretionary bonus available to all employees. It might not be legal, but it happens all the time. There is literally no evidence for the extraordinary and outlandish claim that this happens "all the time". Please don't distract from the actual topic at hand - the wide corruption within the MTA and the New York State government - with completely unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.
      - snark42 9y ago
        > There is literally no evidence for the extraordinary and outlandish claim that this happens "all the time". I've worked at multiple medium sized companies that bonused executives who went to optional political fundraisers, but it is anecdotal evidence at best. Some companies also run very public PAC's for the same purpose. They may or may not discretionarily bonus employees who donate to the PAC, I haven't worked at these places so I don't know first hand, but I wouldn't be surprised.
  - nkoren 9y ago
    > 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. Yes, it absolutely is. Here's the link to Lockheed Martin's own description of their employee-contribution-pooling PAC, as mentioned previously: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/who-we-are/corporate-governance/political-disclosures.html https://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/who-we-are/corporate-gover... That is how it's done, and it's completely standard and legal. Everybody (who wants to buy influence) does this. The message this sends is reinforced by much more spending on third-party lobbying groups. In 2016, for example, this PAC channeled $2.6M worth of employee contributions directly to candidates[1], plus an additional $13.6M to lobbyists to ensure that the message was received as intended[2]. > 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. [...] I'm getting tired of carrying on a conversation about a point that's contradicted by the article were commenting on. Again, sorry, you're wrong. Quoting from the article, emphasis mine: "Construction companies, which have given millions of dollars in campaign donations in recent years, have increased their projected costs by up to 50 percent when bidding for work from the M.T.A., contractors say." "The unions working on M.T.A. projects have donated more than $1 million combined to Mr. Cuomo during his administration, records show." "WSP USA, formerly known as Parsons Brinckerhoff. The firm, which designed some of New York’s original subway, has donated hundreds of thousands to politicians in recent years, and has hired so many transit officials that some in the system refer to it as “the M.T.A. retirement home.”" Finally, let me add: in my previous career I was a consultant for public transport infrastructure planning. This is something I have direct experience of. Politicians are specifically disinterested in cost savings on infrastructure projects because that would work against the interest of their donors. In private, this is something they will tell you without shame. So I've seen this problem point blank. 1: https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00303024&cycle=2016 https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00303024&c... 2: https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000104&year=2016 https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D00000010...

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.
- snark42 9y ago
  > 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. And the company might decide they deserve an extra Christmas bonus equal to their contributions to candidates the company likes plus enough to cover the income taxes... It was however, a discretionary bonus available to all employees. It might not be legal, but it happens all the time.
  - chimeracoder 9y ago
    > And the company might decide they deserve an extra Christmas bonus equal to their contributions to candidates the company likes plus enough to cover the income taxes... It was however, a discretionary bonus available to all employees. It might not be legal, but it happens all the time. There is literally no evidence for the extraordinary and outlandish claim that this happens "all the time". Please don't distract from the actual topic at hand - the wide corruption within the MTA and the New York State government - with completely unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.
    - snark42 9y ago
      > There is literally no evidence for the extraordinary and outlandish claim that this happens "all the time". I've worked at multiple medium sized companies that bonused executives who went to optional political fundraisers, but it is anecdotal evidence at best. Some companies also run very public PAC's for the same purpose. They may or may not discretionarily bonus employees who donate to the PAC, I haven't worked at these places so I don't know first hand, but I wouldn't be surprised.
- nkoren 9y ago
  > 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. Yes, it absolutely is. Here's the link to Lockheed Martin's own description of their employee-contribution-pooling PAC, as mentioned previously: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/who-we-are/corporate-governance/political-disclosures.html https://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/who-we-are/corporate-gover... That is how it's done, and it's completely standard and legal. Everybody (who wants to buy influence) does this. The message this sends is reinforced by much more spending on third-party lobbying groups. In 2016, for example, this PAC channeled $2.6M worth of employee contributions directly to candidates[1], plus an additional $13.6M to lobbyists to ensure that the message was received as intended[2]. > 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. [...] I'm getting tired of carrying on a conversation about a point that's contradicted by the article were commenting on. Again, sorry, you're wrong. Quoting from the article, emphasis mine: "Construction companies, which have given millions of dollars in campaign donations in recent years, have increased their projected costs by up to 50 percent when bidding for work from the M.T.A., contractors say." "The unions working on M.T.A. projects have donated more than $1 million combined to Mr. Cuomo during his administration, records show." "WSP USA, formerly known as Parsons Brinckerhoff. The firm, which designed some of New York’s original subway, has donated hundreds of thousands to politicians in recent years, and has hired so many transit officials that some in the system refer to it as “the M.T.A. retirement home.”" Finally, let me add: in my previous career I was a consultant for public transport infrastructure planning. This is something I have direct experience of. Politicians are specifically disinterested in cost savings on infrastructure projects because that would work against the interest of their donors. In private, this is something they will tell you without shame. So I've seen this problem point blank. 1: https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00303024&cycle=2016 https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00303024&c... 2: https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000104&year=2016 https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D00000010...