3 ms·
"The politicians don't set their positions based on campaign contributions. It's usually the other way around--the contributors chose where to place their contr
by maxxxxx 9y ago
"The politicians don't set their positions based on campaign contributions. It's usually the other way around--the contributors chose where to place their contributions based on the known positions and past votes of the politician."
That's how it should be but often it's the other way around. Don't forget that most laws get written by lobbyists and the politicians are just a front for them.
There are few issues where the people in Congress have their own opinion but there are lots of other issues where a well spoken lobbyist with some cash has a big influence.
I agree that the contributions are really low. That why lobbying has a huge rate of return. You can get billions in tax breaks for a few million in expense.
- rayiner 9y agoYour conclusion makes no sense. If you can get “billions in tax breaks for a few million in expense,” then every money manager who isn’t investing in campaign contributions is breaching their fiduciary duties. As a general economic principle, investment opportunities that return 1000x don’t just sit around, they get arbitraged until the rate of return drops to match the risk. The fact that campaign contributions are so small relative to the amount of money affected by these decisions is powerful evidence that they have extremely attenuated influence on the results. @tzs’s theory makes much more sense: companies contribute to the candidates that are ideologically predisposed to them in hopes of ensuring they keep their seats.