3 ms·

Best case - Politicians made rules. Companies took the most economically favorable (to them) interpretation of those rules as they could get away with. Worst c

Best case - Politicians made rules. Companies took the most economically favorable (to them) interpretation of those rules as they could get away with. Worst case - Politicians made rules. Companies bought ("Lobbied") politicians and changed those rules to make them as favorable as possible. There seems to be something similar in both cases.

pc86 7y ago
I used to be married to a lobbyist, and the actual events are closer to this: Company lobbyists take a group of legislators out for dinner and drinks approaching the cost of rent for most Americans. Company lobbyists and attorneys (the venn diagram here is almost a perfect circle) write rules. Company lobbyists give company-written rules to legislative staffers on a relevant subcommittee. Company lobbyists attend 4- or 5-figure political fundraiser for legislators and discuss desired rules. The next day, legislator sees the agenda for the week, with a topic relevant to Company, and "draft legislation" already available. Company then takes the most economically favorable interpretation of rules written ~90% by them in the first place.
- bsanr2 7y ago
  This is why the Tea Party wave was so devastating: not because of their ideology, but because they swept into office with little experience in policy or the topics they were then appointed to committees to govern. Compare to, say, AOC: much maligned, but who sits on an economics committee and has a degree in... economics (albeit a BA). It's really, really important that our representatives have at least a modicum of knowledge, or else you get a rubber stamp machine instead of a republic.
  - r00fus 7y ago
    The rubber-stamp nature is why those corporatists were courted (and funded) to run in the first place. When money is allowed to essentially buy elections, then a race-to-the-bottom is an obvious outcome.
  - pc86 7y ago
    I'm no fan of them, but this paints the incorrect notion that the members of Congress in the Tea Party are a bunch of uneducated rubes and is pretty blatantly false. Current members[0] have the following degrees: * BA, Finance + MBA * BS, Journalism + JD * BS, Political Science + JD * BS, Computer Science * BA, Forestry * BA, Accounting + MPA * BA + MS (no major listed) * BA, Political Science * BA, Political Science + JD * BA (no major listed) That's only about half of them but I got tired of listing them out. Only two of current Tea Party Caucus members do not have a degree, both of them at least attended college, and one of them was actually in an honor society before leaving. My point isn't to defend them, but to point out the dichotomy one can easily reach from reading your comment (Tea Parties are farmers that can barely read, similarly or less experienced legislators on the opposite end of the spectrum are not) is false. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Caucus#List_of_current_members https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Caucus#List_of_curre...
blackearl 7y ago
Is it that both sides are mostly scumbags?

pc86 7y ago

I used to be married to a lobbyist, and the actual events are closer to this: Company lobbyists take a group of legislators out for dinner and drinks approaching the cost of rent for most Americans. Company lobbyists and attorneys (the venn diagram here is almost a perfect circle) write rules. Company lobbyists give company-written rules to legislative staffers on a relevant subcommittee. Company lobbyists attend 4- or 5-figure political fundraiser for legislators and discuss desired rules. The next day, legislator sees the agenda for the week, with a topic relevant to Company, and "draft legislation" already available. Company then takes the most economically favorable interpretation of rules written ~90% by them in the first place.

bsanr2 7y ago
This is why the Tea Party wave was so devastating: not because of their ideology, but because they swept into office with little experience in policy or the topics they were then appointed to committees to govern. Compare to, say, AOC: much maligned, but who sits on an economics committee and has a degree in... economics (albeit a BA). It's really, really important that our representatives have at least a modicum of knowledge, or else you get a rubber stamp machine instead of a republic.
- r00fus 7y ago
  The rubber-stamp nature is why those corporatists were courted (and funded) to run in the first place. When money is allowed to essentially buy elections, then a race-to-the-bottom is an obvious outcome.
- pc86 7y ago
  I'm no fan of them, but this paints the incorrect notion that the members of Congress in the Tea Party are a bunch of uneducated rubes and is pretty blatantly false. Current members[0] have the following degrees: * BA, Finance + MBA * BS, Journalism + JD * BS, Political Science + JD * BS, Computer Science * BA, Forestry * BA, Accounting + MPA * BA + MS (no major listed) * BA, Political Science * BA, Political Science + JD * BA (no major listed) That's only about half of them but I got tired of listing them out. Only two of current Tea Party Caucus members do not have a degree, both of them at least attended college, and one of them was actually in an honor society before leaving. My point isn't to defend them, but to point out the dichotomy one can easily reach from reading your comment (Tea Parties are farmers that can barely read, similarly or less experienced legislators on the opposite end of the spectrum are not) is false. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Caucus#List_of_current_members https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Caucus#List_of_curre...

blackearl 7y ago

Is it that both sides are mostly scumbags?