4 ms·

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.
    - jimkleiber 4y ago
      But couldn't the representatives promise the leaders they will vote in one direction but secretly vote the other way? How will the leaders know their followers are telling them the truth on their vote?
      - frumper 4y ago
        They sure could. If things pass they may get away with not voting for something they said they would, to no impact. If things don't pass then money will not be flowing and the leaders will be mad and probably escalate pressure. The general thought is that lobbyists pay politicians to buy votes. That means they'll do what it takes to make sure they get their money.
        jimkleiber 4y ago
        But escalate pressure how? Again, assuming that the votes do stay private, how will the leaders know who is lying to them and whom to pressure? Would there be 1 senator pressuring the other 50 to make it pass? But what if it still doesn't pass, does the 1 senator need to pressure all 99 others to try to guarantee it'll pass? If it still doesn't pass, does the 1 senator say we need to sack all 99 of the others? I agree the general belief is that lobbyists pay politicians to buy votes. I think lobbyists pay much more money to intimidate politicians to vote in certain directions, as it's much cheaper to threaten 100 by paying to make an example of 1, than to pay 100 directly. So yes, I think they would try to intimidate them, I just don't see how it would actually happen. Perhaps the lobbyists would punish all, just as the teacher punishes the whole class when no one will admit to pulling the prank, or the coach punishes the whole team when no one takes responsibility for a mistake. I just think that for lobbyists to punish the whole team of 100 senators and 435 members of Congress would require a lot more money and would be harder to coordinate than it currently is. Increase the numbers of senators or members of Congress and that could become even more difficult. I'm not saying it's not possible, it just seems significantly more difficult to intimidate when these details are secret.
        frumper 4y ago
        First off, they're all lying to everyone. To threaten with imperfect information doesn't mean that it's harder to threaten, they just pick winners and losers on who they think is on their side. We're talking about legalized processes border-lining bribery in some cases. If they want money they'll do whatever they have to do to ensure it gets passed. I'm not sure who these mythical politicians are that behind closed doors say they'll vote for something, then don't vote for it on secret principles, especially if it means they won't get support.

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.
  - jimkleiber 4y ago
    But couldn't the representatives promise the leaders they will vote in one direction but secretly vote the other way? How will the leaders know their followers are telling them the truth on their vote?
    - frumper 4y ago
      They sure could. If things pass they may get away with not voting for something they said they would, to no impact. If things don't pass then money will not be flowing and the leaders will be mad and probably escalate pressure. The general thought is that lobbyists pay politicians to buy votes. That means they'll do what it takes to make sure they get their money.
      - jimkleiber 4y ago
        But escalate pressure how? Again, assuming that the votes do stay private, how will the leaders know who is lying to them and whom to pressure? Would there be 1 senator pressuring the other 50 to make it pass? But what if it still doesn't pass, does the 1 senator need to pressure all 99 others to try to guarantee it'll pass? If it still doesn't pass, does the 1 senator say we need to sack all 99 of the others? I agree the general belief is that lobbyists pay politicians to buy votes. I think lobbyists pay much more money to intimidate politicians to vote in certain directions, as it's much cheaper to threaten 100 by paying to make an example of 1, than to pay 100 directly. So yes, I think they would try to intimidate them, I just don't see how it would actually happen. Perhaps the lobbyists would punish all, just as the teacher punishes the whole class when no one will admit to pulling the prank, or the coach punishes the whole team when no one takes responsibility for a mistake. I just think that for lobbyists to punish the whole team of 100 senators and 435 members of Congress would require a lot more money and would be harder to coordinate than it currently is. Increase the numbers of senators or members of Congress and that could become even more difficult. I'm not saying it's not possible, it just seems significantly more difficult to intimidate when these details are secret.
        frumper 4y ago
        First off, they're all lying to everyone. To threaten with imperfect information doesn't mean that it's harder to threaten, they just pick winners and losers on who they think is on their side. We're talking about legalized processes border-lining bribery in some cases. If they want money they'll do whatever they have to do to ensure it gets passed. I'm not sure who these mythical politicians are that behind closed doors say they'll vote for something, then don't vote for it on secret principles, especially if it means they won't get support.