3 ms·

Because CEOs decide who gets campaign donations?

by praptak 7y ago

pmlnr 7y ago
Bribing is bad. Lobbying, that is completely ok, because that's a lot of money.
- jimktrains2 7y ago
  Lobbying isn't bad; you're lobbying if you call or write your congresspeople. Even paid lobbying isn't so clear cute: are you part of any organization you donate to or just pay dues to that sends anyone to DC to talk to congresspeople about the issue the organization care about? There is a problem, but blanket statements like your comment only work to stir the pot without offering any real critique or alternative. There are many, many problems with our current system of political communication, but many of the calls to "remove money from politics" and "stop lobbying" completely overlook that those are the means by which the average citizen also participates in political discourse. Moreover, since every citizen cannot possibly talk to their congresspeople people about the details of every possible subject relating to issues they care about, groups of people need to be able to effect change as well as the individual.
  - mtgx 7y ago
    Even if all of that were true, the limits on political donations need to be limited much more drastically, because otherwise this system skews in favor of the rich and this "money vote" acts as a parallel system alongside the "universal vote" that greatly favors the rich, and going by how most candidates treat their electorate, it's often considered more important then the regular vote. If votes are supposed to be "equal" whether you're white, black, poor, or rich, then so should the "money vote" be as "equal" as possible - in other words, the cap on political donations should be pretty low, into the hundreds of dollars a year. The vast majority of people will not donate more than that to a candidate in an election. But rich people donate way more, and candidates are also incentivized to hold cocktail fundraisers, where basically the real campaign promises are made.
api 7y ago
This but also something else: Boeing and its suppliers are huge employers and a major part of America's industrial base. It's the same rationale behind bailing out the banks and letting their bad behavior slide: "national security." It's believed by many that it's better to let our own failures slide than to potentially lose dominance in a sector.
- nugget 7y ago
  I understand the logic behind wanting to preserve Boeing as a company due to it's economic importance. But I don't understand the need to preserve any ownership by the current stock or bond holders. When the CEO has such negligent disregard for human life on an industrial scale, as may have occurred in this case, it seems that the stock holders at the very least should be exposed to more serious losses.
  - api 7y ago
    Expertise is power. The people who own, control, and operate Boeing are... well... the ones who run Boeing. It's extremely difficult to clean house at the top without losing the entire structure. It's like how it's hard to fire the one IT guy who knows how everything is configured. Look for example at what happened to Venezuela's oil industry when the Chavez regime tried to eliminate its current heads and nationalize it. Oil production crashed. The new people running the system didn't know how to run it, and there is a substantial learning curve. This was part of what set the stage for Venezuela's current economic and political disaster. Corruption aside (and I do think corruption is a factor) this is the most likely rational explanation for this behavior.

Because CEOs decide who gets campaign donations?

pmlnr 7y ago

Bribing is bad. Lobbying, that is completely ok, because that's a lot of money.

jimktrains2 7y ago
Lobbying isn't bad; you're lobbying if you call or write your congresspeople. Even paid lobbying isn't so clear cute: are you part of any organization you donate to or just pay dues to that sends anyone to DC to talk to congresspeople about the issue the organization care about? There is a problem, but blanket statements like your comment only work to stir the pot without offering any real critique or alternative. There are many, many problems with our current system of political communication, but many of the calls to "remove money from politics" and "stop lobbying" completely overlook that those are the means by which the average citizen also participates in political discourse. Moreover, since every citizen cannot possibly talk to their congresspeople people about the details of every possible subject relating to issues they care about, groups of people need to be able to effect change as well as the individual.
- mtgx 7y ago
  Even if all of that were true, the limits on political donations need to be limited much more drastically, because otherwise this system skews in favor of the rich and this "money vote" acts as a parallel system alongside the "universal vote" that greatly favors the rich, and going by how most candidates treat their electorate, it's often considered more important then the regular vote. If votes are supposed to be "equal" whether you're white, black, poor, or rich, then so should the "money vote" be as "equal" as possible - in other words, the cap on political donations should be pretty low, into the hundreds of dollars a year. The vast majority of people will not donate more than that to a candidate in an election. But rich people donate way more, and candidates are also incentivized to hold cocktail fundraisers, where basically the real campaign promises are made.

api 7y ago

This but also something else: Boeing and its suppliers are huge employers and a major part of America's industrial base. It's the same rationale behind bailing out the banks and letting their bad behavior slide: "national security." It's believed by many that it's better to let our own failures slide than to potentially lose dominance in a sector.

nugget 7y ago
I understand the logic behind wanting to preserve Boeing as a company due to it's economic importance. But I don't understand the need to preserve any ownership by the current stock or bond holders. When the CEO has such negligent disregard for human life on an industrial scale, as may have occurred in this case, it seems that the stock holders at the very least should be exposed to more serious losses.
- api 7y ago
  Expertise is power. The people who own, control, and operate Boeing are... well... the ones who run Boeing. It's extremely difficult to clean house at the top without losing the entire structure. It's like how it's hard to fire the one IT guy who knows how everything is configured. Look for example at what happened to Venezuela's oil industry when the Chavez regime tried to eliminate its current heads and nationalize it. Oil production crashed. The new people running the system didn't know how to run it, and there is a substantial learning curve. This was part of what set the stage for Venezuela's current economic and political disaster. Corruption aside (and I do think corruption is a factor) this is the most likely rational explanation for this behavior.