6 ms·

Politicians love the people until they get their first lobbying check. This phenomenon isn't isolated to any particular ideology.

jakelazaroff 4y ago
Only one particular ideology tries to pretend these are their values, though.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  You seem to be insinuating that the only political party that isn't full of shit is the one you align with, when that particular disease is and has always been everywhere.
  - taylodl 4y ago
    There's a reason I don't align with the political party that's full of shit - because they're full of shit! It didn't used to be this way - I used to be a Republican (I'm no spring chicken, I've been around the block a few times). The Republican Party has earned my repudiation! And hey, the Democratic Party may earn my repudiation also but due to Duverger's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law) I'm pretty much stuck with being a Democrat until they become the worse option than the Republicans. At this point I don't see that happening for quite some time.
  - suture 4y ago
    That is not what is being insinuated. The charge is that Republicans advertise themselves as being the party of small government and the free market. That charge is true or false independent of the hypocrisy of other parties. Those hypocrisies can be brought up another time. Do you believe the Republican Party in North Carolina is being hypocritical in this instance?
    - colechristensen 4y ago
      I think four state representatives wrote a bill. State houses are full of idiots and really stupid bills are put forward all the time. Unless we're all residents of North Carolina AND there is a sense that this bill has traction, it is not worth any attention nor should it be thought of as representing a party's position.
      - suture 4y ago
        colechristensen 4y ago
        Your snarkiness is inappropriate here and your politics a symbol of unhelpful political discourse everywhere in this country. I don't care what a few politicians wrote in a bill, it doesn't rise to what "North Carolina wants" or what their local party wants. You shouldn't take idiots so seriously or focus on this "ha! gotcha!" kind of political nonsense. The bill is stupid, the people sponsoring it are stupid, let's not inflate that to saying that everybody in their party is a hypocrite because of a bill they introduced. You want to go on a crusade against these individuals, go ahead, but it's generally uninteresting and unhelpful to anyone. If we focus on making broad generalizations based on stupid statehouse bills around the country, we will certainly never get anything done besides a lively bit of insulting each other.
        suture 4y ago
        Don’t need to make a broad generalization to say that the proposal in question is hypocritical. One can say, “The people who made this proposal are being hypocritical and they are wrong for doing so.” It is always appropriate to admit that someone’s actions are hypocritical regardless of what “side” one is on. I believe the failure of people to point out individual acts of hypocrisy is what leads, overtime, to people making stereotypes. Importantly one should note that the leadership of the Republican Party fails to admonish those who came up with this dumb proposal. (Yes, Democratic leadership rarely calls out Democratic lawmakers making really bad proposals but right now we are talking about the Republican Party.). For instance, the leadership isn’t saying, “This is contrary to our principle of small government.” So it is OK to use a bit of a broad brush in this case.
  - netsharc 4y ago
    When the asshole is in the "other team": "What a scumbag that whole team is!" When the asshole is in "your team": "They're all equally crooked anyway!" There are individual politicians who try their darndest to be clean, but heck, if a little bending of principles gets your constituents that funding, it's probably easier to do so rather than fight hard for that funding "the right way" and get nothing at the end. Are lobbyists that evil that they offer money for politicians' noble causes? There's already the "we'll open an office in your constituency" that actually helps people with jobs...
  - CuriouslyC 4y ago
    You're not wrong, but the amount of blatant hypocrisy on the right is just on another level, particularly among the hardcore Christians. At least the democrats typically have the decency to be sex positive or openly gay before having a scandalous affair.
mywittyname 4y ago
Donate money to the politicians you like. Politicians with a large number of small donors don't need to take money from lobbies. Campaigning isn't cheap and if you don't pay them, the lobbyist will (or will get them replaced). Complaining about money in politics is like complaining about the rain being wet. So might as well buy an umbrella like every other dry person did.
- rgrieselhuber 4y ago
  Or just ban lobbying.
  - mitchdoogle 4y ago
    How is that supposed to work? Are we going to ban public comment? Are we going to leave politicians to make decisions entirely on their own without any expert advisors?
    - orwin 4y ago
      You can ban or limit financing. Make an upper 10 or 20k limit per campaign per person. Lobbyist can still participate in public comment, offer dinner at three star restaurants, write the law proposition/amendment for the politician, but the checks will be limited.
      - sgjohnson 4y ago
        Would require overturning a supreme court precedent or amending the constitution. Because the current settled law is that throwing money at politicians and them then spending it is speech that’s protected under the 1st amendment.
        kgwxd 4y ago
        Then why can't I throw money at a cop to persuade them to not give me a ticket?
bpye 4y ago
It is possible to have a system where politicians cannot receive donations from corporations. This is the case in BC for example.

jakelazaroff 4y ago

Only one particular ideology tries to pretend these are their values, though.

colechristensen 4y ago
You seem to be insinuating that the only political party that isn't full of shit is the one you align with, when that particular disease is and has always been everywhere.
- taylodl 4y ago
  There's a reason I don't align with the political party that's full of shit - because they're full of shit! It didn't used to be this way - I used to be a Republican (I'm no spring chicken, I've been around the block a few times). The Republican Party has earned my repudiation! And hey, the Democratic Party may earn my repudiation also but due to Duverger's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law) I'm pretty much stuck with being a Democrat until they become the worse option than the Republicans. At this point I don't see that happening for quite some time.
- suture 4y ago
  That is not what is being insinuated. The charge is that Republicans advertise themselves as being the party of small government and the free market. That charge is true or false independent of the hypocrisy of other parties. Those hypocrisies can be brought up another time. Do you believe the Republican Party in North Carolina is being hypocritical in this instance?
  - colechristensen 4y ago
    I think four state representatives wrote a bill. State houses are full of idiots and really stupid bills are put forward all the time. Unless we're all residents of North Carolina AND there is a sense that this bill has traction, it is not worth any attention nor should it be thought of as representing a party's position.
    - suture 4y ago
      - colechristensen 4y ago
        Your snarkiness is inappropriate here and your politics a symbol of unhelpful political discourse everywhere in this country. I don't care what a few politicians wrote in a bill, it doesn't rise to what "North Carolina wants" or what their local party wants. You shouldn't take idiots so seriously or focus on this "ha! gotcha!" kind of political nonsense. The bill is stupid, the people sponsoring it are stupid, let's not inflate that to saying that everybody in their party is a hypocrite because of a bill they introduced. You want to go on a crusade against these individuals, go ahead, but it's generally uninteresting and unhelpful to anyone. If we focus on making broad generalizations based on stupid statehouse bills around the country, we will certainly never get anything done besides a lively bit of insulting each other.
        suture 4y ago
        Don’t need to make a broad generalization to say that the proposal in question is hypocritical. One can say, “The people who made this proposal are being hypocritical and they are wrong for doing so.” It is always appropriate to admit that someone’s actions are hypocritical regardless of what “side” one is on. I believe the failure of people to point out individual acts of hypocrisy is what leads, overtime, to people making stereotypes. Importantly one should note that the leadership of the Republican Party fails to admonish those who came up with this dumb proposal. (Yes, Democratic leadership rarely calls out Democratic lawmakers making really bad proposals but right now we are talking about the Republican Party.). For instance, the leadership isn’t saying, “This is contrary to our principle of small government.” So it is OK to use a bit of a broad brush in this case.
- netsharc 4y ago
  When the asshole is in the "other team": "What a scumbag that whole team is!" When the asshole is in "your team": "They're all equally crooked anyway!" There are individual politicians who try their darndest to be clean, but heck, if a little bending of principles gets your constituents that funding, it's probably easier to do so rather than fight hard for that funding "the right way" and get nothing at the end. Are lobbyists that evil that they offer money for politicians' noble causes? There's already the "we'll open an office in your constituency" that actually helps people with jobs...
- CuriouslyC 4y ago
  You're not wrong, but the amount of blatant hypocrisy on the right is just on another level, particularly among the hardcore Christians. At least the democrats typically have the decency to be sex positive or openly gay before having a scandalous affair.

mywittyname 4y ago

Donate money to the politicians you like. Politicians with a large number of small donors don't need to take money from lobbies. Campaigning isn't cheap and if you don't pay them, the lobbyist will (or will get them replaced). Complaining about money in politics is like complaining about the rain being wet. So might as well buy an umbrella like every other dry person did.

rgrieselhuber 4y ago
Or just ban lobbying.
- mitchdoogle 4y ago
  How is that supposed to work? Are we going to ban public comment? Are we going to leave politicians to make decisions entirely on their own without any expert advisors?
  - orwin 4y ago
    You can ban or limit financing. Make an upper 10 or 20k limit per campaign per person. Lobbyist can still participate in public comment, offer dinner at three star restaurants, write the law proposition/amendment for the politician, but the checks will be limited.
    - sgjohnson 4y ago
      Would require overturning a supreme court precedent or amending the constitution. Because the current settled law is that throwing money at politicians and them then spending it is speech that’s protected under the 1st amendment.
      - kgwxd 4y ago
        Then why can't I throw money at a cop to persuade them to not give me a ticket?

bpye 4y ago

It is possible to have a system where politicians cannot receive donations from corporations. This is the case in BC for example.