7 ms·

When there is money involved, it's corruption. I can't see it any other way. It also exclude the people/corporations that don't have that kind of money. I ha

When there is money involved, it's corruption. I can't see it any other way. It also exclude the people/corporations that don't have that kind of money. I have nothing against the concept, as long as no money is involved and the playing field is levelled.

rayiner 8y ago
What kind of money do you think is involved?
- hyperpape 8y ago
  Campaign contributions, for one.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    Lobbying has little to do with campaign contributions. Lobbyists are limited to $2,300 like everyone else. Especially corporate lobbying, because corporate campaign contributions to candidates are banned. Money in lobbying is almost entirely paying lobbyists to make PowerPoint presentations to staffers: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/06_lobbying_drutman.pdf https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/06_lobb....
    - oceanswave 8y ago
      Tell me more about the limits on contributions? https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-strikes-down-limits-on-federal-campaign-donations/2014/04/02/54e16c30-ba74-11e3-9a05-c739f29ccb08_story.html?noredirect=on https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-strike... https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary?cid=N00004357&cycle=CAREER https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary?cid=...
      - rayiner 8y ago
        The WaPo article addresses a ban on aggregate contributions to multiple candidates, not a single candidate. OpenSecrets very misleadingly attributes all contributions from a company’s employees to the company itself. It’s propaganda.
        dsr_ 8y ago
        It would be misleading if there weren't so many cases of corporate officers acting as bagmen for their political causes.
      - vonmoltke 8y ago
        Neither of your links counter what rayiner said. The first specifically says the per-candidate, per-election limits were left in place. The second is just a sum total of all the contributions to Paul Ryan over his federal political career (which has nothing to do with the limits on individual contributors). Neither says that lobbyists have any different limits than I do.
    - hyperpape 8y ago
      When a high paid lobbyist shows up to advocate for a position, the idea that it’s just that lobbyist’s personal contribution speaking is silly. Whoever spent all that money on their salary will also find (generally legal) ways to get way more than $2300 to the relevant politicians. There are PACs, all the other members of the lobbying firm, executives at the companies that contribute to the lobbying group, etc. Think of the lobbying operation as in part a signal “a bunch of people put a bunch of money in play to send me here”. Your opinion implies that all these people can’t put 2+2 together. I’m not even a big believer in the idea that our elections are bought and sold. We get roughly the government we idiots vote for. And an underlooked fact is that we elect inexperienced people to office, give them inexperienced staff, have them vote on topics they often barely understand (think of anything tech related). One big part of what lobbyists do is just show up with fancy talking points designed to appeal to the particular legislator. But denying that there’s a lot of money sloshing around doesn’t make sense.
- bad_user 8y ago
  The kind of money that wins an election.
- eloff 8y ago
  You don't think money or favors change hands under the table frequently? It would elsewhere in the world, I have trouble believing US politicians are so honest as to not be on the take.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    I do not. US bribery laws are among the most strict in the world (including relative to Europe) and prosecutions are common. Just last year a sitting US senator was tried for bribery charges (which ended in a mistrial because the jury couldn’t reach a unanimous verdict).
    - doorbumper 8y ago
      I somewhat agree with you. The US does have a great system in place, and I believe that in the US we're most likely to catch bribery when it occurs, if not close. However, the fact that catching bribery is common means that bribery is even more common than that. You just can't get around the fact that politicians are people and people are vulnerable to bribery.
  - azinman2 8y ago
    Doesn’t need to. Campaign finance is legal and crazy cheap for the outcomes achieved. Typically tens of thousands to get millions or billions in breaks and pork.
    - rayiner 8y ago
      That’s a self-defeating assertion. If legal campaign donations were so high return, more companies would make them, driving up the price. You’re presupposing the existence of this enormous arbitrage opportunity that nobody is talking advantage of, because...? Shit, I can swing “tens of thousands.” Can you tell me how to get “millions” in pork? Shouldn’t YC companies just blow the $120,000 they get in campaign contributions?
      - michaelmrose 8y ago
- walterbell 8y ago
  Enough money to exclude the little guy? 2017 lobbying, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/01/23/google-outspent-every-other-company-on-federal-lobbying-in-2017/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/01/23... Google $18M Amazon $13M Facebook $11M Apple $7M
  - rayiner 8y ago
    That’s so little money compared to the size of the companies, and consistent with what I said elsewhere—it’s money used to pay lobbyists for making PowerPoint presentations on tech policy. That may or may not be bad because smaller players can’t afford similar influence, but it’s not the greasing palms that people think of when they rail against lobbying.
    - walterbell 8y ago
      In the context ("level playing field") of this sub-thread, that money is enough to tilt the playing field, not only against little guys, but against other large corporations.
    - cannabisceo 8y ago
      It doesn't take much money to influence politics in the US. It's confusing in that sense but politicians are often caught taking very small 5 and 6-figure bribes.
      - dsr_ 8y ago
        A number of years ago I figured out the required budget to pay for the entirety of the winning campaigns for the most expensive 51% of senators and representatives. IIRC it came out to a quarter's profits for one of the megacorporations. That was before SuperPACs were widespread, which make it easy to spread that money around. The surprising thing used to be how cheaply politicians can be bought, and now it's how that can be done so legally.
        rayiner 8y ago
- chiefalchemist 8y ago
  Stanford Law professor Joseph Bankman actually made a go at getting this changed. As seen on CBS's Sunday Morning last weekend (8 April 2018). https://www.cbsnews.com/news/taxes-is-there-a-better-way/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/taxes-is-there-a-better-way/ * I'm not sure why the actually video of the segment isn't also available.

rayiner 8y ago

What kind of money do you think is involved?

hyperpape 8y ago
Campaign contributions, for one.
- rayiner 8y ago
  Lobbying has little to do with campaign contributions. Lobbyists are limited to $2,300 like everyone else. Especially corporate lobbying, because corporate campaign contributions to candidates are banned. Money in lobbying is almost entirely paying lobbyists to make PowerPoint presentations to staffers: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/06_lobbying_drutman.pdf https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/06_lobb....
  - oceanswave 8y ago
    Tell me more about the limits on contributions? https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-strikes-down-limits-on-federal-campaign-donations/2014/04/02/54e16c30-ba74-11e3-9a05-c739f29ccb08_story.html?noredirect=on https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-strike... https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary?cid=N00004357&cycle=CAREER https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary?cid=...
    - rayiner 8y ago
      The WaPo article addresses a ban on aggregate contributions to multiple candidates, not a single candidate. OpenSecrets very misleadingly attributes all contributions from a company’s employees to the company itself. It’s propaganda.
      - dsr_ 8y ago
        It would be misleading if there weren't so many cases of corporate officers acting as bagmen for their political causes.
    - vonmoltke 8y ago
      Neither of your links counter what rayiner said. The first specifically says the per-candidate, per-election limits were left in place. The second is just a sum total of all the contributions to Paul Ryan over his federal political career (which has nothing to do with the limits on individual contributors). Neither says that lobbyists have any different limits than I do.
  - hyperpape 8y ago
    When a high paid lobbyist shows up to advocate for a position, the idea that it’s just that lobbyist’s personal contribution speaking is silly. Whoever spent all that money on their salary will also find (generally legal) ways to get way more than $2300 to the relevant politicians. There are PACs, all the other members of the lobbying firm, executives at the companies that contribute to the lobbying group, etc. Think of the lobbying operation as in part a signal “a bunch of people put a bunch of money in play to send me here”. Your opinion implies that all these people can’t put 2+2 together. I’m not even a big believer in the idea that our elections are bought and sold. We get roughly the government we idiots vote for. And an underlooked fact is that we elect inexperienced people to office, give them inexperienced staff, have them vote on topics they often barely understand (think of anything tech related). One big part of what lobbyists do is just show up with fancy talking points designed to appeal to the particular legislator. But denying that there’s a lot of money sloshing around doesn’t make sense.
bad_user 8y ago
The kind of money that wins an election.
eloff 8y ago
You don't think money or favors change hands under the table frequently? It would elsewhere in the world, I have trouble believing US politicians are so honest as to not be on the take.
- rayiner 8y ago
  I do not. US bribery laws are among the most strict in the world (including relative to Europe) and prosecutions are common. Just last year a sitting US senator was tried for bribery charges (which ended in a mistrial because the jury couldn’t reach a unanimous verdict).
  - doorbumper 8y ago
    I somewhat agree with you. The US does have a great system in place, and I believe that in the US we're most likely to catch bribery when it occurs, if not close. However, the fact that catching bribery is common means that bribery is even more common than that. You just can't get around the fact that politicians are people and people are vulnerable to bribery.
- azinman2 8y ago
  Doesn’t need to. Campaign finance is legal and crazy cheap for the outcomes achieved. Typically tens of thousands to get millions or billions in breaks and pork.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    That’s a self-defeating assertion. If legal campaign donations were so high return, more companies would make them, driving up the price. You’re presupposing the existence of this enormous arbitrage opportunity that nobody is talking advantage of, because...? Shit, I can swing “tens of thousands.” Can you tell me how to get “millions” in pork? Shouldn’t YC companies just blow the $120,000 they get in campaign contributions?
    - michaelmrose 8y ago
walterbell 8y ago
Enough money to exclude the little guy? 2017 lobbying, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/01/23/google-outspent-every-other-company-on-federal-lobbying-in-2017/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/01/23... Google $18M Amazon $13M Facebook $11M Apple $7M
- rayiner 8y ago
  That’s so little money compared to the size of the companies, and consistent with what I said elsewhere—it’s money used to pay lobbyists for making PowerPoint presentations on tech policy. That may or may not be bad because smaller players can’t afford similar influence, but it’s not the greasing palms that people think of when they rail against lobbying.
  - walterbell 8y ago
    In the context ("level playing field") of this sub-thread, that money is enough to tilt the playing field, not only against little guys, but against other large corporations.
  - cannabisceo 8y ago
    It doesn't take much money to influence politics in the US. It's confusing in that sense but politicians are often caught taking very small 5 and 6-figure bribes.
    - dsr_ 8y ago
      A number of years ago I figured out the required budget to pay for the entirety of the winning campaigns for the most expensive 51% of senators and representatives. IIRC it came out to a quarter's profits for one of the megacorporations. That was before SuperPACs were widespread, which make it easy to spread that money around. The surprising thing used to be how cheaply politicians can be bought, and now it's how that can be done so legally.
      - rayiner 8y ago
chiefalchemist 8y ago
Stanford Law professor Joseph Bankman actually made a go at getting this changed. As seen on CBS's Sunday Morning last weekend (8 April 2018). https://www.cbsnews.com/news/taxes-is-there-a-better-way/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/taxes-is-there-a-better-way/ * I'm not sure why the actually video of the segment isn't also available.