3 ms·

> "We'll spend $X on advertising for your campaign if you vote for this bill" That's illegal. The advertising is given no strings attached. The only incentiv

> "We'll spend $X on advertising for your campaign if you vote for this bill" That's illegal. The advertising is given no strings attached. The only incentive that you (the politician) have to vote for things that favor the company is that, if you don't, they may not advertise for you next time. The "fun" part of this whole thing is that the money those companies spend isn't really the issue, it's the fact that the money is helpful to influence people. Comparatively, if a person of non-political celebrity tweets that they like a candidate, they might muster much more influence than say, Exxon could for the same candidate. Now that candidate is just as beholden to the interests of that celebrity as one might be to a corporation. In effect, the PAC money really is just taking money away from influential individuals and commoditizing it. I, personally, don't really see a difference. It's not like pre-Citizens United America was some sort of paradise. Most people perceive it as worse but I just see it as different. I, personally, still have a similar amount of political power and influence.

Cederfjard 6y ago
> The only incentive that you (the politician) have to vote for things that favor the company is that, if you don't, they may not advertise for you next time. And also that if you do, you may be able to go and work for them for good compensation when your political career is over.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Or your spouse/sibling/kid/niece/nephew get a nice internship or other position.
Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
> The advertising is given no strings attached. The only incentive that you (the politician) have to vote for things that favor the company is that, if you don't, they may not advertise for you next time. When an oil company buys advertising to a candidate, both parties know it's going to be in exchange for votes that favor the oil company. To claim anything else is bad faith. I THINK we're in agreement here? If so, I don't think it's correct to call it "no strings attached". The politician might not be contractually bound to votes in favor of oil, but if they want to still have a job at the end of their term, they're somewhat forced to.

Cederfjard 6y ago

> The only incentive that you (the politician) have to vote for things that favor the company is that, if you don't, they may not advertise for you next time. And also that if you do, you may be able to go and work for them for good compensation when your political career is over.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
Or your spouse/sibling/kid/niece/nephew get a nice internship or other position.

Sohcahtoa82 6y ago

> The advertising is given no strings attached. The only incentive that you (the politician) have to vote for things that favor the company is that, if you don't, they may not advertise for you next time. When an oil company buys advertising to a candidate, both parties know it's going to be in exchange for votes that favor the oil company. To claim anything else is bad faith. I THINK we're in agreement here? If so, I don't think it's correct to call it "no strings attached". The politician might not be contractually bound to votes in favor of oil, but if they want to still have a job at the end of their term, they're somewhat forced to.