4 ms·

Very exciting to see this pass after California's bill was killed [1] Right to repair is one of those frustrating issues that has broad public support, but not

Very exciting to see this pass after California's bill was killed [1] Right to repair is one of those frustrating issues that has broad public support, but not enough passion to impact elections. This makes it easy for a small number of corporations to influence legislatures via lobbying and campaign donations, and effectively block popular measures. [1] https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/01/california_repair_bill/ https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/01/california_repair_bil...

jbverschoor 4y ago
> via lobbying and campaign donations you mean bribes
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  I used to think this was sarcasm. Then I met people who literally didn’t understand the difference between putting money in a politician’s pocket / promising them personal perks and lobbying then or donating to their campaign or PAC.
  - sofixa 4y ago
    It's basically the same thing, just regulated. When you follow the (extremely limit in the US, thankfully at least a bit more complex in other developed countries) rules to give money to a politician for favours it's called lobbying. You can lobby without money too ( by voicing your opinion), so maybe that's where you see a difference?
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > basically the same thing, just regulated Campaign expenditures are audited and regulated. Lobbying generally involves little of material value going to the politician—it’s connecting with experts and writing bills their staff are too stretched to deal with. PACs are the black hole in the equation. But if you think a PAC can just buy a politician a boat or a house without consequences, you’ve severely underestimated the FBI’s appetite for those kinds of cases. Conflating these modes normalises actual bribery.
      - nicoburns 4y ago
        > if you think a PAC can just buy a politician a boat or a house without consequences That's not the problem. The problem is the spending on political campaigning. They're bribing the politicians with the political power of office (if they don't take the money, then it's almost impossible for them to get elected). Other countries deal with this by having strict (and relatively low) limits on campaign spending.
      - jbverschoor 4y ago
        Well sure believe what you want about regulation and audits.. one of the least corrupt countries (the Netherlands) has scandal after scandal. If the information is not there, it can't be audited. And politicians seem to have very bad memory.
      - formerkrogemp 4y ago
        You can take a personal loan as a politician to support your campaign and have that paid back by campaign contributions. A house can be bought in an revocable trust by a political friend and be used as the politician's home address for residency purposes and physical residency purposes. Speaking engagements and their ilk often pay politicians for minimal work. A cousin or friend can be paid by a politician's campaign to perform services for a campaign. Most politicians and elected officials receive 2X or 3X pension time served over regular firefighters and first responders and other public state empolyees. A part-time politician over 5 years earns as much pension as a public employee working for 10-15 years in many states. Benefits abound in the rules for the rulemakers. "Arm's length transactions" are more heavily regulated for corporate minions than they are for politicians in many ways.
    - formerkrogemp 4y ago
      Lobbying without money is whispering in a cacophonous, raucous jungle of influence. You will not be heard most of the time.
  - CamperBob2 4y ago
    At some point you have to ask why people who clearly aren't doing it for patriotic or altruistic reasons are willing to spend tens of millions of dollars to apply for a job that pays hundreds of thousands a year.
  - namlem 4y ago
    It's true that it's not quite a bribe, since the politician can't spend the money on personal expenses. However, it is still a way of buying influence, since the money goes to helping the politician getting reelected and therefore maintaining the position of power that makes their influence valuable. In practice it's only a little better than bribery.
eikenberry 4y ago
It feels very much like Copyright abuse/extensions. Extremely common, everyone is against it, yet not important enough to impact elections which allows a small number of corporations to influence...

jbverschoor 4y ago

> via lobbying and campaign donations you mean bribes

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
I used to think this was sarcasm. Then I met people who literally didn’t understand the difference between putting money in a politician’s pocket / promising them personal perks and lobbying then or donating to their campaign or PAC.
- sofixa 4y ago
  It's basically the same thing, just regulated. When you follow the (extremely limit in the US, thankfully at least a bit more complex in other developed countries) rules to give money to a politician for favours it's called lobbying. You can lobby without money too ( by voicing your opinion), so maybe that's where you see a difference?
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > basically the same thing, just regulated Campaign expenditures are audited and regulated. Lobbying generally involves little of material value going to the politician—it’s connecting with experts and writing bills their staff are too stretched to deal with. PACs are the black hole in the equation. But if you think a PAC can just buy a politician a boat or a house without consequences, you’ve severely underestimated the FBI’s appetite for those kinds of cases. Conflating these modes normalises actual bribery.
    - nicoburns 4y ago
      > if you think a PAC can just buy a politician a boat or a house without consequences That's not the problem. The problem is the spending on political campaigning. They're bribing the politicians with the political power of office (if they don't take the money, then it's almost impossible for them to get elected). Other countries deal with this by having strict (and relatively low) limits on campaign spending.
    - jbverschoor 4y ago
      Well sure believe what you want about regulation and audits.. one of the least corrupt countries (the Netherlands) has scandal after scandal. If the information is not there, it can't be audited. And politicians seem to have very bad memory.
    - formerkrogemp 4y ago
      You can take a personal loan as a politician to support your campaign and have that paid back by campaign contributions. A house can be bought in an revocable trust by a political friend and be used as the politician's home address for residency purposes and physical residency purposes. Speaking engagements and their ilk often pay politicians for minimal work. A cousin or friend can be paid by a politician's campaign to perform services for a campaign. Most politicians and elected officials receive 2X or 3X pension time served over regular firefighters and first responders and other public state empolyees. A part-time politician over 5 years earns as much pension as a public employee working for 10-15 years in many states. Benefits abound in the rules for the rulemakers. "Arm's length transactions" are more heavily regulated for corporate minions than they are for politicians in many ways.
  - formerkrogemp 4y ago
    Lobbying without money is whispering in a cacophonous, raucous jungle of influence. You will not be heard most of the time.
- CamperBob2 4y ago
  At some point you have to ask why people who clearly aren't doing it for patriotic or altruistic reasons are willing to spend tens of millions of dollars to apply for a job that pays hundreds of thousands a year.
- namlem 4y ago
  It's true that it's not quite a bribe, since the politician can't spend the money on personal expenses. However, it is still a way of buying influence, since the money goes to helping the politician getting reelected and therefore maintaining the position of power that makes their influence valuable. In practice it's only a little better than bribery.

eikenberry 4y ago

It feels very much like Copyright abuse/extensions. Extremely common, everyone is against it, yet not important enough to impact elections which allows a small number of corporations to influence...