7 ms·

This is a great example of why the way in which politicians raise money and how they are lobbied is corruptive. This is a case where quite easily 80% of their

This is a great example of why the way in which politicians raise money and how they are lobbied is corruptive. This is a case where quite easily 80% of their constituency would applaud the change. But a minor set of companies with an ability to contribute large sums of money (for or against) is able to influence something like this passing. Citizens United and similar SCOTUS cases have made it even that much more unlikely that the situation will be improved any time soon.

temp231239 8y ago
I have seem this happening in many areas - GMO and ISP squashing well-fare schemes for farmers and internet users. If only news agencies did proper job highlighting these issues, companies wouldn't date to indulge in acts like these.
aaronbrethorst 8y ago
If your elected officials refuse to accept corporate PAC money, thank them. If your elected officials accept corporate PAC money, tell them to cut it out because you'll be supporting a primary challenger who refuses all corporate PAC donations...and then support a primary challenger who refuses all corporate PAC donations. Having elected officials who reject all corporate PAC money isn't a panacea all on its own, but it's a great start.
- jimktrains2 8y ago
  How would a candidate accept pac money since they're currently bared from doing so or (overtly) coordinating.
  - aaronbrethorst 8y ago
    Candidates accept PAC money all the time. It has nothing to do with coordinating. These are donations to a campaign. Here's a list: https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/top-recipients?cycle=2018&type=B https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs... See how Kevin McCarthy, House Minority Leader, raked in almost $8mm in the last election cycle? That's because he'd have been Speaker if Republicans had held the House. Those $8mm in donations would've bought companies like Goldman Sachs, MetLife, Altria, and others plenty of phone calls with McCarthy. https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/contributors?cid=N00028152&cycle=2018 https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/contributors...
- stochastic_monk 8y ago
  It is a great start. It also shouldn’t be a partisan issue. Vote for people who value their constituents over lobbyists.
fmardones 8y ago
"You sit down, review a prefilled filing from the government. If it’s accurate, you sign it. If it’s not, you fix it or ignore it altogether and prepare your return yourself. It’s your choice. You might not have to pay for an accountant, or fiddle for hours with complex software. It could all be over in minutes." This is exactly how it works in Chile...since 2005!
- labster 8y ago
  That's the difference between a democracy and an oligarchy. In Chile, the government tells the people and companies how much to pay in taxes. In the United States, the corporations tell the government how much they will pay in taxes.
  - bovermyer 8y ago
    Not to be pedantic, but... both the US and Chile are representative democratic republics, not democracies. Neither is an oligarchy, either. And while corporations and individuals of means have a disproportionate amount of influence in American politics, Chile is not immune from the same phenomenon; it just takes a different form. But I agree with you in spirit - wealth should not be a factor in how much influence someone has in a democratic system.
    - thefringthing 8y ago
      This is not what anyone has meant by the term "democracy" for a thousand years.
      - asark 8y ago
        To back you up, I can confirm that people who spend their time thinking a lot about this stuff (political scientists and those in related fields) spend zero time quibbling over the use of the term "democracy" as it's commonly used, and are likely to eye-roll and attempt to disengage from conversation should someone push their glasses up their nose and "well, actually..." the issue. In most contexts they use democracy as an umbrella term, the same way everyone else does. Doing otherwise marks one as an outsider to the field, or a novice—any in teaching positions get to correct plenty of "clever" freshmen on the issue every year.
grecy 8y ago
Yes, this is a failing of Democracy as it currently works in the United States, because the money of large corporations has more say that the will of the people. Unfortunately, it's true of so many aspects of American society right now that are in desperate need of reform or rebuild - education, health, roads, public transport, safety, just to name a few. There are so many hundreds of billions of private profits tied up in these things they will never be allowed to improve.
- Illniyar 8y ago
  As far as I am aware this is a failing of representational democracy everywhere. It might be less or more pronounced in different countries or different areas, but it is endemic to democracy. Or really, if you think of it, to any type of government. In every regime financial power translates to the ability to influence laws and government. Even direct democracies such as ancient athens were prone to the rich influencing or outright buying other voters
mkhpalm 8y ago
Your comment reminded me of this study. Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi... TLDR version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig
- rayiner 8y ago
  That study is invoked for arguments that it cannot support. That study makes two main findings: 1) “Elites” and everyone else agree on policy the large majority of the time. 2) When there is disagreement, the policy tends to reflect the elites’ preferences. However, they define “elite” as the top 10%. Basically, a typical HN reader. The study is often used to asset that the US is oligarchic. But there are numerous reasons why, in a representative democracy, there would be a thumb in the scale in favor of policies supported by the top 10%: professionals, business owners, property owners, etc.
  - moorhosj 8y ago
    ==But there are numerous reasons why, in a representative democracy, there would be a thumb in the scale in favor of policies supported by the top 10%== Can you share some? Why doesn’t it exist to such extremes in other representative democrcies (France, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Australia, etc.)?
    - rayiner 8y ago
      The study makes no conclusions about what happens in other representative democracies, and I don’t think there is a basis to just assume that the phenomenon doesn’t exist elsewhere. Let’s use taxes as an example. France has extremely low corporate tax rates (11%) and pays for its welfare state with a very high VAT (25%) that puts most of the burden of the tax burden on the middle class. Indeed, America has the most progressive tax system out of all those countries. Put differently, the US is overall a much lower tax country than those others, but the elite bear a larger share of the overall tax burden than in those other countries. Is that indicative of the elite in the US having more or less influence compared to those other countries? As to your first question, we can use VAT as an example. Why would European countries rely so heavily on a sort of tax that falls mainly upon the lower income brackets? There is a lot of economic literature showing that VATs are more efficient than income taxes. So even if the majority might prefer an income tax borne primarily by the rich, the country adopts a VAT instead. More generally, actual voters skew wealthier than the whole population. The top 10% of people might be the top 15% of voters. Who are these people? Well, me. I’m a married professional with a house and two kids in school. If I’m unhappy, I’m going to make a hell of a lot more noise than, for example, a single college student who might not even vote in the next off-cycle election, and certainly won’t vote in the primary or any of the local elections. The top 15% is a proxy for the most engaged voters with the most skin in the game (children in school, own homes, own businesses, etc.).
rayiner 8y ago
There are three different things wrong with your argument. 1) Even if your premises were true, which they are not (see below), your theory of causation is simply unworkable. Intuit and H&R Block spend a combined $5 million a year on lobbying. If that were enough to even significantly influence tax policy, we could crowd fund opposition, not to mention some altruistic millionaire. Or all the tons of companies who would benefit from simplified tax filing? You don’t think there are enough forces opposed to complicated tax filing that they couldn’t muster up a measly $5 million a year to hire some lobbyists? That’s completely not believable. 2) You’re mixing up lobbying and campaign contributions. Intuit and H&R Block are not able to “contribute large sums of money” to any politicians. Lobbying is different—hiring people to tell politicians why they should support one policy over another; arm them with data and arguments to use against their opponents; draft proposed legislation; etc. 3) Citizens United doesn’t have anything to do with lobbying. It’s about companies spending their own money to air political ads. If Intuit and H&R Block were running ads trying to convince people to vote for politicians who support complicated tax filing, then Citizens United would be relevant.
- Jolter 8y ago
  Reading your point #1, it looks to me like you are confusing "thing that really ought to happen" with "thing that automatically happens without anyone having to step up and act". Of course we could crowdfund opposition, so get to it already!
- tacomonstrous 8y ago
  >Citizens United doesn’t have anything to do with lobbying. It’s about companies spending their own money to air political ads. If Intuit and H&R Block were running ads trying to convince people to vote for politicians who support complicated tax filing, then Citizens United would be relevant. While this is true in the literal sense of what the case was about, I find it disingenuous to claim that this is the only impact it had. The rise of 'Super PACs' is correlated directly with the decision. Here's an extract from Wikipedia for instance: >Certainly, the holding in Citizens United helped affirm the legal basis for super PACs by deciding that, for purposes of establishing a "compelling government interest" of corruption sufficient to justify government limitations on political speech, "independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption".
throwaway2048 8y ago
Diffuse Rewards, Concentrated Opposition.

temp231239 8y ago

I have seem this happening in many areas - GMO and ISP squashing well-fare schemes for farmers and internet users. If only news agencies did proper job highlighting these issues, companies wouldn't date to indulge in acts like these.

aaronbrethorst 8y ago

If your elected officials refuse to accept corporate PAC money, thank them. If your elected officials accept corporate PAC money, tell them to cut it out because you'll be supporting a primary challenger who refuses all corporate PAC donations...and then support a primary challenger who refuses all corporate PAC donations. Having elected officials who reject all corporate PAC money isn't a panacea all on its own, but it's a great start.

jimktrains2 8y ago
How would a candidate accept pac money since they're currently bared from doing so or (overtly) coordinating.
- aaronbrethorst 8y ago
  Candidates accept PAC money all the time. It has nothing to do with coordinating. These are donations to a campaign. Here's a list: https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/top-recipients?cycle=2018&type=B https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs... See how Kevin McCarthy, House Minority Leader, raked in almost $8mm in the last election cycle? That's because he'd have been Speaker if Republicans had held the House. Those $8mm in donations would've bought companies like Goldman Sachs, MetLife, Altria, and others plenty of phone calls with McCarthy. https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/contributors?cid=N00028152&cycle=2018 https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/contributors...
stochastic_monk 8y ago
It is a great start. It also shouldn’t be a partisan issue. Vote for people who value their constituents over lobbyists.

fmardones 8y ago

"You sit down, review a prefilled filing from the government. If it’s accurate, you sign it. If it’s not, you fix it or ignore it altogether and prepare your return yourself. It’s your choice. You might not have to pay for an accountant, or fiddle for hours with complex software. It could all be over in minutes." This is exactly how it works in Chile...since 2005!

labster 8y ago
That's the difference between a democracy and an oligarchy. In Chile, the government tells the people and companies how much to pay in taxes. In the United States, the corporations tell the government how much they will pay in taxes.
- bovermyer 8y ago
  Not to be pedantic, but... both the US and Chile are representative democratic republics, not democracies. Neither is an oligarchy, either. And while corporations and individuals of means have a disproportionate amount of influence in American politics, Chile is not immune from the same phenomenon; it just takes a different form. But I agree with you in spirit - wealth should not be a factor in how much influence someone has in a democratic system.
  - thefringthing 8y ago
    This is not what anyone has meant by the term "democracy" for a thousand years.
    - asark 8y ago
      To back you up, I can confirm that people who spend their time thinking a lot about this stuff (political scientists and those in related fields) spend zero time quibbling over the use of the term "democracy" as it's commonly used, and are likely to eye-roll and attempt to disengage from conversation should someone push their glasses up their nose and "well, actually..." the issue. In most contexts they use democracy as an umbrella term, the same way everyone else does. Doing otherwise marks one as an outsider to the field, or a novice—any in teaching positions get to correct plenty of "clever" freshmen on the issue every year.

grecy 8y ago

Yes, this is a failing of Democracy as it currently works in the United States, because the money of large corporations has more say that the will of the people. Unfortunately, it's true of so many aspects of American society right now that are in desperate need of reform or rebuild - education, health, roads, public transport, safety, just to name a few. There are so many hundreds of billions of private profits tied up in these things they will never be allowed to improve.

Illniyar 8y ago
As far as I am aware this is a failing of representational democracy everywhere. It might be less or more pronounced in different countries or different areas, but it is endemic to democracy. Or really, if you think of it, to any type of government. In every regime financial power translates to the ability to influence laws and government. Even direct democracies such as ancient athens were prone to the rich influencing or outright buying other voters

mkhpalm 8y ago

Your comment reminded me of this study. Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi... TLDR version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

rayiner 8y ago
That study is invoked for arguments that it cannot support. That study makes two main findings: 1) “Elites” and everyone else agree on policy the large majority of the time. 2) When there is disagreement, the policy tends to reflect the elites’ preferences. However, they define “elite” as the top 10%. Basically, a typical HN reader. The study is often used to asset that the US is oligarchic. But there are numerous reasons why, in a representative democracy, there would be a thumb in the scale in favor of policies supported by the top 10%: professionals, business owners, property owners, etc.
- moorhosj 8y ago
  ==But there are numerous reasons why, in a representative democracy, there would be a thumb in the scale in favor of policies supported by the top 10%== Can you share some? Why doesn’t it exist to such extremes in other representative democrcies (France, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Australia, etc.)?
  - rayiner 8y ago
    The study makes no conclusions about what happens in other representative democracies, and I don’t think there is a basis to just assume that the phenomenon doesn’t exist elsewhere. Let’s use taxes as an example. France has extremely low corporate tax rates (11%) and pays for its welfare state with a very high VAT (25%) that puts most of the burden of the tax burden on the middle class. Indeed, America has the most progressive tax system out of all those countries. Put differently, the US is overall a much lower tax country than those others, but the elite bear a larger share of the overall tax burden than in those other countries. Is that indicative of the elite in the US having more or less influence compared to those other countries? As to your first question, we can use VAT as an example. Why would European countries rely so heavily on a sort of tax that falls mainly upon the lower income brackets? There is a lot of economic literature showing that VATs are more efficient than income taxes. So even if the majority might prefer an income tax borne primarily by the rich, the country adopts a VAT instead. More generally, actual voters skew wealthier than the whole population. The top 10% of people might be the top 15% of voters. Who are these people? Well, me. I’m a married professional with a house and two kids in school. If I’m unhappy, I’m going to make a hell of a lot more noise than, for example, a single college student who might not even vote in the next off-cycle election, and certainly won’t vote in the primary or any of the local elections. The top 15% is a proxy for the most engaged voters with the most skin in the game (children in school, own homes, own businesses, etc.).

rayiner 8y ago

There are three different things wrong with your argument. 1) Even if your premises were true, which they are not (see below), your theory of causation is simply unworkable. Intuit and H&R Block spend a combined $5 million a year on lobbying. If that were enough to even significantly influence tax policy, we could crowd fund opposition, not to mention some altruistic millionaire. Or all the tons of companies who would benefit from simplified tax filing? You don’t think there are enough forces opposed to complicated tax filing that they couldn’t muster up a measly $5 million a year to hire some lobbyists? That’s completely not believable. 2) You’re mixing up lobbying and campaign contributions. Intuit and H&R Block are not able to “contribute large sums of money” to any politicians. Lobbying is different—hiring people to tell politicians why they should support one policy over another; arm them with data and arguments to use against their opponents; draft proposed legislation; etc. 3) Citizens United doesn’t have anything to do with lobbying. It’s about companies spending their own money to air political ads. If Intuit and H&R Block were running ads trying to convince people to vote for politicians who support complicated tax filing, then Citizens United would be relevant.

Jolter 8y ago
Reading your point #1, it looks to me like you are confusing "thing that really ought to happen" with "thing that automatically happens without anyone having to step up and act". Of course we could crowdfund opposition, so get to it already!
tacomonstrous 8y ago
>Citizens United doesn’t have anything to do with lobbying. It’s about companies spending their own money to air political ads. If Intuit and H&R Block were running ads trying to convince people to vote for politicians who support complicated tax filing, then Citizens United would be relevant. While this is true in the literal sense of what the case was about, I find it disingenuous to claim that this is the only impact it had. The rise of 'Super PACs' is correlated directly with the decision. Here's an extract from Wikipedia for instance: >Certainly, the holding in Citizens United helped affirm the legal basis for super PACs by deciding that, for purposes of establishing a "compelling government interest" of corruption sufficient to justify government limitations on political speech, "independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption".

throwaway2048 8y ago

Diffuse Rewards, Concentrated Opposition.