3 ms·

>Nor is that sort of bribery objectionable to most US voters or news orgs - again, in any meaningful way. Where did you get that idea? AFAICT, most Americans

>Nor is that sort of bribery objectionable to most US voters or news orgs - again, in any meaningful way. Where did you get that idea? AFAICT, most Americans are for getting money out of politics[0][1][2][3]. Am I missing something here? [0] https://www.citizen.org/article/polls-on-citizens-united-and-big-money/ https://www.citizen.org/article/polls-on-citizens-united-and... [1] https://www.issueone.org/new-poll-shows-money-in-politics-is-a-top-voting-concern/ https://www.issueone.org/new-poll-shows-money-in-politics-is... [2] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/08/most-americans-want-to-limit-campaign-spending-say-big-donors-have-greater-political-influence/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/08/most-americ... [3] https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-05-10/study-most-americans-want-kill-citizens-united-constitutional-amendment https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-05-10/study-most-americans-...

WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
>> Nor is that sort of bribery objectionable to most US voters or news orgs - again, in any meaningful way. > Where did you get that idea? Voters overwhelming vote for incumbent pols of their party - pols who passed law in response to campaign donations they received. Reelection is a pretty solid approval indicator. Likewise, the dearth of coverage about pols passing laws for campaign cash shows news orgs' ongoing lack of interest.
- xg15 5y ago
  > Voters overwhelming vote for incumbent pols of their party - pols who passed law in response to campaign donations they received. Do voters feel they have an actual choice here? If the impression is that all candidates engage in this, voting results might not mean much here, especially if direct opinion polling states there is interest in the topic. > Likewise, the dearth of coverage about pols passing laws for campaign cash shows news orgs' ongoing lack of interest. Indeed, but this is the interest of news orgs, not voters. > Reelection is a pretty solid approval indicator. I think this is the same logic trap like the common argument "We added feature X to our product and people are still buying it, therefore people must like feature X." That's not true - product decisions are a result of a multitude of factors. People may buy the product despite feature X because it's outweighted by other factors. Similarly, corruption scandals may be outweighted by other motivations when voting - but that still wouldn't mean that voters approve of bribery.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >Do voters feel they have an actual choice here? If the impression is that all candidates engage in this, voting results might not mean much here, especially if direct opinion polling states there is interest in the topic. I agree. However, it's not about choice or whether or not certain candidates raise money. In the current system, all candidates, incumbent or not, spend a significant portion of their time and energy fundraising. Not because they're necessarily corrupt, but because if they don't, they can't compete with those who do. The problem is that our political system pretty much requires it unless you're extraordinarily wealthy. And even then, most will fund-raise anyway. The system we have incentivizes money over all else. Which is counterproductive and creates the avenues for prioritizing the well-heeled and wealthy special interests. Voters understand this, which is why most want to get the running sewer of filthy lucre out of our politics and elections. What is necessary is public funding of elections, with strict limits on spending and much more regulation of lobbying. Doing so would allow a much broader cross-section of folks to run for office and give those who are elected much more leeway in servicing their constituents. And that's, IMHO, what most Americans want.
  - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
    > Do voters feel they have an actual choice here? What is the voter scenario that you're visualizing here? Do you see voters considering the instances where their pols have traded law for cash, gritting teeth and voting anyway? I'm fairly sure that first part never happens - because voters know ~0 instances where their pols have traded law for cash - because cash-for-power rarely catches news orgs' interest. That last bit is to counter where you infer the lack of concern by news orgs isn't related to the lack of concern by voters.
    - emodendroket 5y ago
      > I'm fairly sure that first part never happens A substantial number of people did this as recently as 2014. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayoral_elections_in_Providence,_Rhode_Island#2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayoral_elections_in_Providenc...

WarOnPrivacy 5y ago

>> Nor is that sort of bribery objectionable to most US voters or news orgs - again, in any meaningful way. > Where did you get that idea? Voters overwhelming vote for incumbent pols of their party - pols who passed law in response to campaign donations they received. Reelection is a pretty solid approval indicator. Likewise, the dearth of coverage about pols passing laws for campaign cash shows news orgs' ongoing lack of interest.

xg15 5y ago
> Voters overwhelming vote for incumbent pols of their party - pols who passed law in response to campaign donations they received. Do voters feel they have an actual choice here? If the impression is that all candidates engage in this, voting results might not mean much here, especially if direct opinion polling states there is interest in the topic. > Likewise, the dearth of coverage about pols passing laws for campaign cash shows news orgs' ongoing lack of interest. Indeed, but this is the interest of news orgs, not voters. > Reelection is a pretty solid approval indicator. I think this is the same logic trap like the common argument "We added feature X to our product and people are still buying it, therefore people must like feature X." That's not true - product decisions are a result of a multitude of factors. People may buy the product despite feature X because it's outweighted by other factors. Similarly, corruption scandals may be outweighted by other motivations when voting - but that still wouldn't mean that voters approve of bribery.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >Do voters feel they have an actual choice here? If the impression is that all candidates engage in this, voting results might not mean much here, especially if direct opinion polling states there is interest in the topic. I agree. However, it's not about choice or whether or not certain candidates raise money. In the current system, all candidates, incumbent or not, spend a significant portion of their time and energy fundraising. Not because they're necessarily corrupt, but because if they don't, they can't compete with those who do. The problem is that our political system pretty much requires it unless you're extraordinarily wealthy. And even then, most will fund-raise anyway. The system we have incentivizes money over all else. Which is counterproductive and creates the avenues for prioritizing the well-heeled and wealthy special interests. Voters understand this, which is why most want to get the running sewer of filthy lucre out of our politics and elections. What is necessary is public funding of elections, with strict limits on spending and much more regulation of lobbying. Doing so would allow a much broader cross-section of folks to run for office and give those who are elected much more leeway in servicing their constituents. And that's, IMHO, what most Americans want.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  > Do voters feel they have an actual choice here? What is the voter scenario that you're visualizing here? Do you see voters considering the instances where their pols have traded law for cash, gritting teeth and voting anyway? I'm fairly sure that first part never happens - because voters know ~0 instances where their pols have traded law for cash - because cash-for-power rarely catches news orgs' interest. That last bit is to counter where you infer the lack of concern by news orgs isn't related to the lack of concern by voters.
  - emodendroket 5y ago
    > I'm fairly sure that first part never happens A substantial number of people did this as recently as 2014. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayoral_elections_in_Providence,_Rhode_Island#2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayoral_elections_in_Providenc...