6 ms·

And it is relatively inexpensive.

sebmellen 6y ago
And a good investment. For example, an 86,000% return on $43,000 in campaign donations: https://truthout.org/articles/you-too-can-buy-a-congressman/ https://truthout.org/articles/you-too-can-buy-a-congressman/.
- csharpminor 6y ago
  One of the major points I took away from Lessig’s Republic, Lost is that these campaign donations trackers are unable to factor in the credible threat of a donor funding an opponent. The dollar amount may be relatively low, but the value to an incumbent politician is that wealthy stakeholders will not fund a challenger.
  - sebmellen 6y ago
    That's a very interesting game-theoretic view of the issue. I've got to read that book, thank you for the recommendation.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > One of the major points I took away from Lessig’s Republic, Lost is that these campaign donations trackers are unable to factor in the credible threat of a donor funding an opponent. They also aren't able to factor in independent expenditures (especially direct independent expenditures), or facilitation of donations (bundling) as opposed to direct donation, as well as the credible threat of doing those things, as well as direct donation, in the opposite direction.
ultimoo 6y ago
I was taken aback by this the most when I saw some lobbying dollar amounts earlier this year — I don’t recollect the specifics but most are probably rounding errors for multi-billion dollar Fortune 500 companies, let alone trillion dollar tech juggernauts.
- rayiner 6y ago
  Shouldn’t that tell you something? What kind of high return market attracts so little investment?
  - ultimoo 6y ago
    Sorry I don't understand what you're implying -- can you expand on this?
- ip26 6y ago
  Sometimes it's just depressing to be sold out so... cheaply.
  - 93po 6y ago
    They're selling out because companies threaten to give your opponent millions. Take the $50k and do what they want or you'll be out of a job permanently next election
wolfram74 6y ago
This[0] was an interesting read back '19 comparing total political spending with the size of the almond industry. It's a weird comparison. [0]https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in-almonds/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in...
juskrey 6y ago
It's easy to buy central government.
- qwantim1 6y ago
  Easy is not the word I’d use. Lucrative maybe. Not easy.
  - girvo 6y ago
    Although it's cheaper than you'd expect. > Well, according to www.opensecrets.org, oil, gas and coal companies donated at least $43,000 to Zincke’s campaign. That’s more than 10 percent of Ryan Zincke’s total contributions from Political Action Committees. https://truthout.org/articles/you-too-can-buy-a-congressman/ https://truthout.org/articles/you-too-can-buy-a-congressman/ I've seen other articles which back this up for other lobbying too: tens of thousands, not millions!
    - bobthepanda 6y ago
      It's interesting to compare this to, say, the UK, where political spending is capped at £30,000 per seat, presumably to stop elections from being pissing contests to see which companies can spend more on effective lobbying. https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50170067 https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50170067
    - rayiner 6y ago
      I don’t understand. You think a pro-coal industry position is, what, unpopular with voters in Montana? Your interpretation of the facts seems to be based on the preconception that voters in Montana have an antagonistic relationship toward the coal industry in the state. Such that there would be a conflict and companies would have to lobby the elected representative to do something they want at the expense of what is constituents want. That’s not what’s happening. Montana voters know where the jobs come from. And in fact, polls show higher trust in corporations than the government: https://www.wsj.com/articles/more-trust-in-business-than-in-government-and-media-survey-finds-11610533801 https://www.wsj.com/articles/more-trust-in-business-than-in-... Read Gallup’s polling on the issue. Americans are incredibly suspicious of government and government regulation: https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/fvpmserw7uegpcwbidbvdw.png https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Pro.... Just 23% of people say there’s “too little” regulation of business. 45% say too much. Now think about the $43,000 in lobbying, except assuming that voters in Montana want what’s best for the coal companies in their state. In that view, it makes more sense to understand that lobbying not as changing the vote, but coal companies communicating what they want to a politician that knows that his voters support giving coal companies what they want.

And a good investment. For example, an 86,000% return on $43,000 in campaign donations: https://truthout.org/articles/you-too-can-buy-a-congressman/ https://truthout.org/articles/you-too-can-buy-a-congressman/.

csharpminor 6y ago
One of the major points I took away from Lessig’s Republic, Lost is that these campaign donations trackers are unable to factor in the credible threat of a donor funding an opponent. The dollar amount may be relatively low, but the value to an incumbent politician is that wealthy stakeholders will not fund a challenger.
- sebmellen 6y ago
  That's a very interesting game-theoretic view of the issue. I've got to read that book, thank you for the recommendation.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > One of the major points I took away from Lessig’s Republic, Lost is that these campaign donations trackers are unable to factor in the credible threat of a donor funding an opponent. They also aren't able to factor in independent expenditures (especially direct independent expenditures), or facilitation of donations (bundling) as opposed to direct donation, as well as the credible threat of doing those things, as well as direct donation, in the opposite direction.

ultimoo 6y ago

I was taken aback by this the most when I saw some lobbying dollar amounts earlier this year — I don’t recollect the specifics but most are probably rounding errors for multi-billion dollar Fortune 500 companies, let alone trillion dollar tech juggernauts.

rayiner 6y ago
Shouldn’t that tell you something? What kind of high return market attracts so little investment?
- ultimoo 6y ago
  Sorry I don't understand what you're implying -- can you expand on this?
ip26 6y ago
Sometimes it's just depressing to be sold out so... cheaply.
- 93po 6y ago
  They're selling out because companies threaten to give your opponent millions. Take the $50k and do what they want or you'll be out of a job permanently next election

wolfram74 6y ago

This[0] was an interesting read back '19 comparing total political spending with the size of the almond industry. It's a weird comparison. [0]https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in-almonds/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in...

juskrey 6y ago

It's easy to buy central government.

qwantim1 6y ago
Easy is not the word I’d use. Lucrative maybe. Not easy.
- girvo 6y ago
  Although it's cheaper than you'd expect. > Well, according to www.opensecrets.org, oil, gas and coal companies donated at least $43,000 to Zincke’s campaign. That’s more than 10 percent of Ryan Zincke’s total contributions from Political Action Committees. https://truthout.org/articles/you-too-can-buy-a-congressman/ https://truthout.org/articles/you-too-can-buy-a-congressman/ I've seen other articles which back this up for other lobbying too: tens of thousands, not millions!
  - bobthepanda 6y ago
    It's interesting to compare this to, say, the UK, where political spending is capped at £30,000 per seat, presumably to stop elections from being pissing contests to see which companies can spend more on effective lobbying. https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50170067 https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50170067
  - rayiner 6y ago
    I don’t understand. You think a pro-coal industry position is, what, unpopular with voters in Montana? Your interpretation of the facts seems to be based on the preconception that voters in Montana have an antagonistic relationship toward the coal industry in the state. Such that there would be a conflict and companies would have to lobby the elected representative to do something they want at the expense of what is constituents want. That’s not what’s happening. Montana voters know where the jobs come from. And in fact, polls show higher trust in corporations than the government: https://www.wsj.com/articles/more-trust-in-business-than-in-government-and-media-survey-finds-11610533801 https://www.wsj.com/articles/more-trust-in-business-than-in-... Read Gallup’s polling on the issue. Americans are incredibly suspicious of government and government regulation: https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/fvpmserw7uegpcwbidbvdw.png https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Pro.... Just 23% of people say there’s “too little” regulation of business. 45% say too much. Now think about the $43,000 in lobbying, except assuming that voters in Montana want what’s best for the coal companies in their state. In that view, it makes more sense to understand that lobbying not as changing the vote, but coal companies communicating what they want to a politician that knows that his voters support giving coal companies what they want.