5 ms·
The writer is very quick to assume Exxon Mobil's own figure for political spending is disingenuously low, but very quick to countenance the idea that the total
by YawningAngel 7y ago
The writer is very quick to assume Exxon Mobil's own figure for political spending is disingenuously low, but very quick to countenance the idea that the total amount of spend on political influence is publicly available. Maybe more money is being spent nontransparently? For example, it's a common practice in the UK to hire former (or current!) politicians for sinecure positions at greatly inflated salaries. I doubt anyone admits to these quasi-bribes as being political spending.
- opportune 7y agoYeah, there is tons of money spent on politics outside the above the board lobbying industry. If I run a commercial saying to vote for Pedro I’m not going to be counted in these metrics.
- tdcbfdct3 7y agoYes you will be. https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/ https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/
- kortilla 7y agoUnlikely. Most small time stuff won’t ever be reported properly like that.
- opportune 7y agoWhat if I don’t tell the FEC? What if I run an ad that’s not directly affiliated with a political campaign like via PragerU?
- sb057 7y agoThen you've broken the law by failing to register under the appropriate channels and are subject to prosecution.
- aetherson 7y agoI'm sure they don't report such things as political spending. But it also seems hard to me to imagine that adding up to very much. There are what, each year maybe a few hundred politicians who leave office and might be up for such patronage? If all of them get a million dollars, that's a few hundred million dollars a year. The movers and shakers of Washington DC are also... I mean, a lot of them become lobbyists or media people, and while they probably get good deals in doing that, it's hard to argue that a former congressional committee chairperson is going to be a bad lobbyist or whatever. I think that actually, the people who become movers and shakers in government tend to not have a ton of trouble getting enough money to live solidly upper-class lifestyles, and they have self-selected as people who value having influence more than money.
- YawningAngel 7y agoThe specific mechanism is quite limited in scope, but others aren't. Offering contracts, loans, or investment to companies owned by politicians allows the transfer of considerably more money, for example. I'm not staking a claim as to how much this happens or what mechanisms are used, merely pointing out that it isn't clear that the public figure is accurate.
- blackflame7000 7y agoI mean, Netflix effectively tripled Obama's net worth with one deal. I'm not saying it's quid pro quo, but ex-politicians can command quite a lot of money in exchange for their influence.
- wyxuan 7y agoThat’s arguably more for the name he provided rather than influence
- gwern 7y agoThat Netflix could so casually triple Obama's net worth kind of emphasizes OP's point. (Note that quite aside from being the most recent two-term US president, who is considerably more popular than the current office-holder, Obama was a best-selling author & Nobel Laureate.)
- pessimizer 7y ago> it's a common practice in the UK to hire former (or current!) politicians ...or their consulting firms, or the companies they run, sit on the boards of, or simply own a large piece of.
- loeg 7y agoThe Exxon thing is an off-the-cuff joke, not a serious statement of malfeasance.
- BurningFrog 7y agoPoliticians and big business in their district don't have to collude. They already have the same interests. If the Big Company does badly, voters will lose their jobs, and it will be a tough reelection. The politicians don't need to be bribed.