7 ms·

It hurts my soul every time I reminded that companies have no cap on how much they can 'donate' to politicians. Imagine a world where there was no money in poli

It hurts my soul every time I reminded that companies have no cap on how much they can 'donate' to politicians. Imagine a world where there was no money in politics.

some_account99 6y ago
you know guanxi functions without money...
- toomanyrichies 6y ago
  For those unfamiliar with the term "guanxi"- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanxi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanxi You can think of it as tantamount to one's network, and the amount of influence within that network. Basically, "it's not what you know, it's who you know". Source- lived in Shanghai for 5+ years.
  - unityByFreedom 6y ago
    It's pretty rich to claim the who-you-know culture in China is not influenced by money. Bribery is how you get everything from good grades, to good employment, promotions, get out of jail etc.
    - some_account99 6y ago
      the who-you-know culture serves a totally different function than monetary bribes. bribes are very fungible.
      - unityByFreedom 6y ago
        Can you expand on that? Bribes do get you position or grades, so I do not see the distinction.
        some_account99 6y ago
        if you really need someone to give you a breakdown + application of the idea of fungibility to bribes to see the distinction, here you go: when you bribe a teacher for a better grade, you aren't utilizing a relationship to induce a change in outcome, you are utilizing money, money that holds value independent of who is providing the bribe. edit:i am making the assumption that parent read at least the wiki blurb of what the parent is replying to.
        unityByFreedom 6y ago
        Money helps you get to know people, particularly in China for things like getting grades and jobs. If, after you give them money, they then "know" you, money was still part of the equation.
        some_account99 6y ago
        you are intellectually lazy and you need to read the wikipedia article before you go about jaqing (just asking questions) on the internet. informal networks of reciprocity is not the same as bribes where the realisation of value is in the exchange compare to informal networks of reciprocity where continued participation in the network brings value. i cannot believe you are this moronic that you cannot even appreciate this distinction. i can only hope you are trolling and trying to hide the nature of these networks because it gives credence to arguments that are very sinophobic.
        unityByFreedom 6y ago
        Please familiarize yourself with HN guidelines on comment etiquette: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
lopmotr 6y ago
Donating to politicians only has an effect to the extent that some voters insist on voting for the most well-funded politicians. They are the real problem because they are the ones actually deciding who gets into government. You should vote against all high donation-receiving politicians to help cancel out those soul-hurting votes. Unfortunately, most of the people who complain about this stuff don't actually care enough to vote against it, and they become part of the problem themselves.
- randmeerkat 6y ago
  It doesn’t matter how you vote. Money in politics will win every time. Blaming the voters is victim blaming. This is just late stage capitalism at its finest. https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-theories-of-american-politics-explained https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-...
- adrianN 6y ago
  In the US you have the choice between two candidates. Both of them take every dollar that they can get. Do you propose people should just stop voting?
  - zaarn 6y ago
    The solution for the US would be the first radically reform it's election and voting systems.
    - adrianN 6y ago
      The people should just vote for a candidate from a party that doesn't benefit from the current system... wait
  - lopmotr 6y ago
    There are other candidates but they don't spend enough for people to know they exist. Vote for one of them. It doesn't matter which because they won't win but they don't have to. They just have to "steal" enough votes from one of the major party candidates to cause them to lose. Next time round, they'll have to adjust their policy to be against political donations in order to win back those activist voters.
WalterBright 6y ago
Money gets your word out. If people don't like your word, though, they won't vote for you. See Bloomberg, Hilary (outspent Trump 2:1). Many other examples of well-funded politicians failing.
- nitrogen 6y ago
  Necessary but not sufficient?
- webmaven 6y ago
  > Money gets your word out. If people don't like your word, though, they won't vote for you. Note that money also buys a lot of analysis, message testing, etc. to figure out which version of your word people like best. > See Bloomberg, Hilary (outspent Trump 2:1). Many other examples of well-funded politicians failing. Sure, having deeper pockets doesn't guarantee you'll win (particularly if you're a dark horse), but it is the way to bet.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    > to figure out which version of your word people like best. It sounds like you're arguing that democracy is better if the politicians don't know what the people want?
    - bostik 6y ago
      I argue that democracy would be better if politicians cared about what people want. Not the top-of-their-head soundbite wants, but the actual needs driving those individual desires. Ironically enough I believe that the current democracy we live in is effectively quite close to the original democracy, as it manifested in the city-state of Athens and wider ancient Greece. Only 3% of the total population had a vote: namely those with family titles or enough wealth.[ß] These days we'd call it plutocracy or oligarchy. ß: It doesn't really matter what the general population does with their votes when less than 3% get to choose what options are on the ballot in the first place.
ballenf 6y ago
Pertinent to this article, if there were antitrust regulations with teeth, you wouldn't have monopolies and their associated profit levels. This would both limit spending and limit the incentive for spending since they wouldn't have an incentive to create barriers to entry for competition through regulation.
ArnoVW 6y ago
This exemplarises so well american exceptionalism. We don't have to use our imagination. This sort of experiment is being run in multiple countries around the globe.
- nr2x 6y ago
  Agree, but also nice to imagine a world where the most economically and militarily powerful country wasn’t run by corporate bribery.
NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
I don't know about other PACs, but the one that my firm organizes is funded entirely from employee donations; no corporate money at all. It has stated policy goals that are basically about creating an environment that's good for the firm's business and then gives a 50:50 split between the two major parties for federal campaigns. I just can't get too excited about this being a bad thing.
- late2part 6y ago
  It's okay because you bribe the two major parties equally?
  - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
    It's OK because it's my money, and donating to a PAC like this is just a straightforward way to donate to candidates who support a business environment that's good for my employer.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
macspoofing 6y ago
To be clear, there are limits for direct political donations. What was decided, correctly, in the Citizens United vs. FEC case was the right for political activism from non-campaign affiliated entities (like corporates, nonprofits, labor unions, etc.). The context for that decision was FEC's attempt to censor a film from a conservative group made in response to FEC's refusal of classify Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 as political 'expenditure' (a film which had a clearly stated goal of getting Bush out of office). The FEC set a bullshit 'bona fide commercial film maker' as a standard for their decision, and when Citizen's United restablished itself as a film maker, their next film (an anti-Hillary documentary) was also found to be in violation. In no universe was FEC's policy fair and objective. From wikipedia, here's a crazy argument the government tried to make: "During the original oral argument, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart (representing the FEC) argued that under Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the government would have the power to ban books if those books contained even one sentence expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate and were published or distributed by a corporation or labor union. In response to this line of questioning, Stewart further argued that under Austin the government could ban the digital distribution of political books over the Amazon Kindle or prevent a union from hiring an author to write a political book." Isn't that an insane conjecture? This exchange by itself probably lost the FEC the case. >Imagine a world where there was no money in politics. Such a world never existed, does not exist, and will never exist. Politics are a center of power. You can ban money all you want, but all you'll accomplish is create a 'black market'. I posit that you do not want to live in such a world.
- Nitramp 6y ago
  > Such a world never existed, does not exist, and will never exist. Politics are a center of power. You can ban money all you want, but all you'll accomplish is create a 'black market'. I posit that you do not want to live in such a world. The same is true of many areas of society. Medical doctors, company executives, the police, etc. all have power and there's good money involved. Still we have laws against fraud, insider trading, bribery, abuse of power, and so forth. While there are transgressions, by and large things seem to work, and when we find new kinds of transgressions, the reaction is not to throw our hands up and say "it'll always be like this!" but to fix the laws. Which is to say: I don't get the defeatism about regulation here. Laws work. Making actions illegal and threatening a hefty prison term is an effective way of reducing their occurrence. Now it may be hard to get such laws passed, but that's another story.

It hurts my soul every time I reminded that companies have no cap on how much they can 'donate' to politicians. Imagine a world where there was no money in politics.

some_account99 6y ago

you know guanxi functions without money...

toomanyrichies 6y ago
For those unfamiliar with the term "guanxi"- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanxi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanxi You can think of it as tantamount to one's network, and the amount of influence within that network. Basically, "it's not what you know, it's who you know". Source- lived in Shanghai for 5+ years.
- unityByFreedom 6y ago
  It's pretty rich to claim the who-you-know culture in China is not influenced by money. Bribery is how you get everything from good grades, to good employment, promotions, get out of jail etc.
  - some_account99 6y ago
    the who-you-know culture serves a totally different function than monetary bribes. bribes are very fungible.
    - unityByFreedom 6y ago
      Can you expand on that? Bribes do get you position or grades, so I do not see the distinction.
      - some_account99 6y ago
        if you really need someone to give you a breakdown + application of the idea of fungibility to bribes to see the distinction, here you go: when you bribe a teacher for a better grade, you aren't utilizing a relationship to induce a change in outcome, you are utilizing money, money that holds value independent of who is providing the bribe. edit:i am making the assumption that parent read at least the wiki blurb of what the parent is replying to.
        unityByFreedom 6y ago
        Money helps you get to know people, particularly in China for things like getting grades and jobs. If, after you give them money, they then "know" you, money was still part of the equation.
        some_account99 6y ago
        you are intellectually lazy and you need to read the wikipedia article before you go about jaqing (just asking questions) on the internet. informal networks of reciprocity is not the same as bribes where the realisation of value is in the exchange compare to informal networks of reciprocity where continued participation in the network brings value. i cannot believe you are this moronic that you cannot even appreciate this distinction. i can only hope you are trolling and trying to hide the nature of these networks because it gives credence to arguments that are very sinophobic.
        unityByFreedom 6y ago
        Please familiarize yourself with HN guidelines on comment etiquette: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

lopmotr 6y ago

Donating to politicians only has an effect to the extent that some voters insist on voting for the most well-funded politicians. They are the real problem because they are the ones actually deciding who gets into government. You should vote against all high donation-receiving politicians to help cancel out those soul-hurting votes. Unfortunately, most of the people who complain about this stuff don't actually care enough to vote against it, and they become part of the problem themselves.

randmeerkat 6y ago
It doesn’t matter how you vote. Money in politics will win every time. Blaming the voters is victim blaming. This is just late stage capitalism at its finest. https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-theories-of-american-politics-explained https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-...
adrianN 6y ago
In the US you have the choice between two candidates. Both of them take every dollar that they can get. Do you propose people should just stop voting?
- zaarn 6y ago
  The solution for the US would be the first radically reform it's election and voting systems.
  - adrianN 6y ago
    The people should just vote for a candidate from a party that doesn't benefit from the current system... wait
- lopmotr 6y ago
  There are other candidates but they don't spend enough for people to know they exist. Vote for one of them. It doesn't matter which because they won't win but they don't have to. They just have to "steal" enough votes from one of the major party candidates to cause them to lose. Next time round, they'll have to adjust their policy to be against political donations in order to win back those activist voters.

WalterBright 6y ago

Money gets your word out. If people don't like your word, though, they won't vote for you. See Bloomberg, Hilary (outspent Trump 2:1). Many other examples of well-funded politicians failing.

nitrogen 6y ago
Necessary but not sufficient?
webmaven 6y ago
> Money gets your word out. If people don't like your word, though, they won't vote for you. Note that money also buys a lot of analysis, message testing, etc. to figure out which version of your word people like best. > See Bloomberg, Hilary (outspent Trump 2:1). Many other examples of well-funded politicians failing. Sure, having deeper pockets doesn't guarantee you'll win (particularly if you're a dark horse), but it is the way to bet.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  > to figure out which version of your word people like best. It sounds like you're arguing that democracy is better if the politicians don't know what the people want?
  - bostik 6y ago
    I argue that democracy would be better if politicians cared about what people want. Not the top-of-their-head soundbite wants, but the actual needs driving those individual desires. Ironically enough I believe that the current democracy we live in is effectively quite close to the original democracy, as it manifested in the city-state of Athens and wider ancient Greece. Only 3% of the total population had a vote: namely those with family titles or enough wealth.[ß] These days we'd call it plutocracy or oligarchy. ß: It doesn't really matter what the general population does with their votes when less than 3% get to choose what options are on the ballot in the first place.

ballenf 6y ago

Pertinent to this article, if there were antitrust regulations with teeth, you wouldn't have monopolies and their associated profit levels. This would both limit spending and limit the incentive for spending since they wouldn't have an incentive to create barriers to entry for competition through regulation.

ArnoVW 6y ago

This exemplarises so well american exceptionalism. We don't have to use our imagination. This sort of experiment is being run in multiple countries around the globe.

nr2x 6y ago
Agree, but also nice to imagine a world where the most economically and militarily powerful country wasn’t run by corporate bribery.

NovemberWhiskey 6y ago

I don't know about other PACs, but the one that my firm organizes is funded entirely from employee donations; no corporate money at all. It has stated policy goals that are basically about creating an environment that's good for the firm's business and then gives a 50:50 split between the two major parties for federal campaigns. I just can't get too excited about this being a bad thing.

late2part 6y ago
It's okay because you bribe the two major parties equally?
- NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
  It's OK because it's my money, and donating to a PAC like this is just a straightforward way to donate to candidates who support a business environment that's good for my employer.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

macspoofing 6y ago

To be clear, there are limits for direct political donations. What was decided, correctly, in the Citizens United vs. FEC case was the right for political activism from non-campaign affiliated entities (like corporates, nonprofits, labor unions, etc.). The context for that decision was FEC's attempt to censor a film from a conservative group made in response to FEC's refusal of classify Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 as political 'expenditure' (a film which had a clearly stated goal of getting Bush out of office). The FEC set a bullshit 'bona fide commercial film maker' as a standard for their decision, and when Citizen's United restablished itself as a film maker, their next film (an anti-Hillary documentary) was also found to be in violation. In no universe was FEC's policy fair and objective. From wikipedia, here's a crazy argument the government tried to make: "During the original oral argument, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart (representing the FEC) argued that under Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the government would have the power to ban books if those books contained even one sentence expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate and were published or distributed by a corporation or labor union. In response to this line of questioning, Stewart further argued that under Austin the government could ban the digital distribution of political books over the Amazon Kindle or prevent a union from hiring an author to write a political book." Isn't that an insane conjecture? This exchange by itself probably lost the FEC the case. >Imagine a world where there was no money in politics. Such a world never existed, does not exist, and will never exist. Politics are a center of power. You can ban money all you want, but all you'll accomplish is create a 'black market'. I posit that you do not want to live in such a world.

Nitramp 6y ago
> Such a world never existed, does not exist, and will never exist. Politics are a center of power. You can ban money all you want, but all you'll accomplish is create a 'black market'. I posit that you do not want to live in such a world. The same is true of many areas of society. Medical doctors, company executives, the police, etc. all have power and there's good money involved. Still we have laws against fraud, insider trading, bribery, abuse of power, and so forth. While there are transgressions, by and large things seem to work, and when we find new kinds of transgressions, the reaction is not to throw our hands up and say "it'll always be like this!" but to fix the laws. Which is to say: I don't get the defeatism about regulation here. Laws work. Making actions illegal and threatening a hefty prison term is an effective way of reducing their occurrence. Now it may be hard to get such laws passed, but that's another story.