4 ms·

The argument is that if lobbyists can't know for certain how the person would vote, why give them money? If I want to give you $1M and yet I can't be sure you w

The argument is that if lobbyists can't know for certain how the person would vote, why give them money? If I want to give you $1M and yet I can't be sure you will vote the way I want you to, do I really want to take that gamble?

cycomanic 4y ago
Why not attack the root cause and forbid political donations to parties and people running for election?
- jimkleiber 4y ago
  I'd argue because there are lots of ways around such prohibitions. What's considered political speech or campaigning? Is me advocating on HN for a change in Congressional rules considered a campaign? What if I were paid for it? (I'm not, just strongly believe in it). I think it becomes really nebulous to track and define what is considered campaigning or electioneering, and it would be much much easier to just have members of Congress vote using an Aristotle dual urn voting machine [0]. I think the root cause is not political donations but being able to track whether those political donations have the intended effect. I imagine very very few lobbyists would give cash if they couldn't make sure the strings were attached just as they wanted them to be. [0]: https://congressionalresearch.org/SecretBallot.html https://congressionalresearch.org/SecretBallot.html
avgcorrection 4y ago
If this turned out to be roadblock then lobbyists would lobby for a new act that overturned this law. It would get a freedom-sounding name like Openness Of Information For a Free America God Bless You Act. But how would they lobby for that...? you ask. It would go marginally slower because of this temporary roadblock. But the necessary information would nonethless get through by way of more informal means, in the same way that de facto bribery cannot be eliminated by boneheaded laws like “you may not explicitly say that you intend to do something if someone gives you money”. As long as there are lobbyists and politicians and they are allowed to interact... there’s a way. Or the politicians would just overturn the act by their own initiative since they want that sweet money.
- jimkleiber 4y ago
  > If this turned out to be roadblock then lobbyists would lobby for a new act that overturned this law. It would get a freedom-sounding name like Openness Of Information For a Free America God Bless You Act. Yes I agree they'd try. > But how would they lobby for that...? you ask. It would go marginally slower because of this temporary roadblock. You seem certain it would happen anyway. Maybe an analogy: would you prefer that the votes of private citizens were public info? That everyone would know, with certainty, how their neighbor voted? I imagine lobbyists would love certainty over this information. Yes they try their best to guess it with all the voter info they buy and glean from data firms, yet don't have certainty over it. So why haven't they been able to get public citizen voting records? It actually used to be this way and apparently it could get quite violent, in terms of how people would intimidate each other into voting certain ways[0]. I'm not saying that lobbyists wouldn't find a way to still influence the votes, I just think it would likely be a lot harder than you imagine it would be. [0]: https://congressionalresearch.org/SecretBallot.html https://congressionalresearch.org/SecretBallot.html
frumper 4y ago
They could just give them the money after something passes as a reward. At that point it doesn't matter if a specific individual voted for it in a secret vote or not.
- jimkleiber 4y ago
  Hmm I'm curious, will you say more?
  - frumper 4y ago
    Lobbyists care about results, not that specific people are voting. Secret congressional voting won't affect the money flowing if favorable policies are enacted even if there are some that don't vote in lock step with the lobbyists.
    - jimkleiber 4y ago
      Fair, I'm just curious exactly how it would happen if they had less insight into who was voting for what. Would they have to donate to 51 of the candidates in the Senate? Or to both parties? But if the parties can't see who of their members voted for which bill or even proposed different things in committee, then how would the party leaders bully and intimidate members to follow the party line? How do you imagine the money would flow if there were more secrecy in the Congressional process? If you were a lobbyist (or more accurately, a rich person who pays lobbyists), how would you do it?
      - frumper 4y ago
        Promise the leaders lots of support if things you want pass, and the leaders can help direct who you should be spreading your support around to. It doesn't matter at the individual level who actually votes for what you want as long as it passes. Let the leaders get the votes to pass it, and then they also concentrate their power and help direct where the rewards for passing it go.
        4y ago

cycomanic 4y ago

Why not attack the root cause and forbid political donations to parties and people running for election?

jimkleiber 4y ago
I'd argue because there are lots of ways around such prohibitions. What's considered political speech or campaigning? Is me advocating on HN for a change in Congressional rules considered a campaign? What if I were paid for it? (I'm not, just strongly believe in it). I think it becomes really nebulous to track and define what is considered campaigning or electioneering, and it would be much much easier to just have members of Congress vote using an Aristotle dual urn voting machine [0]. I think the root cause is not political donations but being able to track whether those political donations have the intended effect. I imagine very very few lobbyists would give cash if they couldn't make sure the strings were attached just as they wanted them to be. [0]: https://congressionalresearch.org/SecretBallot.html https://congressionalresearch.org/SecretBallot.html

avgcorrection 4y ago

If this turned out to be roadblock then lobbyists would lobby for a new act that overturned this law. It would get a freedom-sounding name like Openness Of Information For a Free America God Bless You Act. But how would they lobby for that...? you ask. It would go marginally slower because of this temporary roadblock. But the necessary information would nonethless get through by way of more informal means, in the same way that de facto bribery cannot be eliminated by boneheaded laws like “you may not explicitly say that you intend to do something if someone gives you money”. As long as there are lobbyists and politicians and they are allowed to interact... there’s a way. Or the politicians would just overturn the act by their own initiative since they want that sweet money.

jimkleiber 4y ago
> If this turned out to be roadblock then lobbyists would lobby for a new act that overturned this law. It would get a freedom-sounding name like Openness Of Information For a Free America God Bless You Act. Yes I agree they'd try. > But how would they lobby for that...? you ask. It would go marginally slower because of this temporary roadblock. You seem certain it would happen anyway. Maybe an analogy: would you prefer that the votes of private citizens were public info? That everyone would know, with certainty, how their neighbor voted? I imagine lobbyists would love certainty over this information. Yes they try their best to guess it with all the voter info they buy and glean from data firms, yet don't have certainty over it. So why haven't they been able to get public citizen voting records? It actually used to be this way and apparently it could get quite violent, in terms of how people would intimidate each other into voting certain ways[0]. I'm not saying that lobbyists wouldn't find a way to still influence the votes, I just think it would likely be a lot harder than you imagine it would be. [0]: https://congressionalresearch.org/SecretBallot.html https://congressionalresearch.org/SecretBallot.html

frumper 4y ago

They could just give them the money after something passes as a reward. At that point it doesn't matter if a specific individual voted for it in a secret vote or not.

jimkleiber 4y ago
Hmm I'm curious, will you say more?
- frumper 4y ago
  Lobbyists care about results, not that specific people are voting. Secret congressional voting won't affect the money flowing if favorable policies are enacted even if there are some that don't vote in lock step with the lobbyists.
  - jimkleiber 4y ago
    Fair, I'm just curious exactly how it would happen if they had less insight into who was voting for what. Would they have to donate to 51 of the candidates in the Senate? Or to both parties? But if the parties can't see who of their members voted for which bill or even proposed different things in committee, then how would the party leaders bully and intimidate members to follow the party line? How do you imagine the money would flow if there were more secrecy in the Congressional process? If you were a lobbyist (or more accurately, a rich person who pays lobbyists), how would you do it?
    - frumper 4y ago
      Promise the leaders lots of support if things you want pass, and the leaders can help direct who you should be spreading your support around to. It doesn't matter at the individual level who actually votes for what you want as long as it passes. Let the leaders get the votes to pass it, and then they also concentrate their power and help direct where the rewards for passing it go.
      - 4y ago