3 ms·
Or give lobbyists more power over the revolving cast of lawmakers who each want to cash in during their short window of opportunity.
by merrywhether 5y ago
Or give lobbyists more power over the revolving cast of lawmakers who each want to cash in during their short window of opportunity.
- WaitWaitWha 5y agoApologies, but I am unclear if you are facetious or serious. (not native English writer.) Can you explain what you mean?
- merrywhether 5y agoSure, sorry for being a little curt. It’s possible that were politicians only in seat for a short period, some of them would succumb to the incentive to “make the most of it” personally. Since this would leave lobbyists as the most “senior” people on Capitol Hill with the most experience managing these interactions, they’d be able to optimize for providing lucrative payouts to these short-timer politicians. I’m not saying this is guaranteed, just that there are incentives toward that outcome and also that experience gives power in “repeated game” scenarios. A converse example of this is the lifetime appointment for judges, ensuring them stability to help minimize the appeal of maximizing short-term gains.
- delecti 5y agoIf a lawmaker knows they'll only be in office for a limited period of time, there's potentially incentive to behave extra dishonestly to maximize how much they can profit. Additionally, however you feel about established lawmakers, the current multi-term career lawmakers are very familiar with the process of making laws. If there's a higher proportion of new lawmakers, then the people most familiar with the process of making laws would be the lobbyists. That could result in them having a larger influence on the whole process. The balance is that newer lawmakers are potentially less corrupted from decades in the system. It's not easy to say what the net result would be.