4 ms·

>It's a grossly corrupt system, but notice that corporate media (owned by the same people) chose not to put 'concern about government corruption' on their list

by rosnd 4y ago

>It's a grossly corrupt system, but notice that corporate media (owned by the same people) chose not to put 'concern about government corruption' on their list of items to poll voters about prior to the midterms. I find it difficult to view the things you describe as "grossly corrupt" >Then, the Senator or House member will always take the donor's call Ok, so what? >will introduce bills written by the donor's lawyer What exactly is supposed to be wrong with this? >will put pressure on regulatory agencies to do what the donor wants, etc. Not in any official role, as a politician they just happen to be a well respected person with influence. How would you even forbid this? None of these seem to be examples of actual corruption, like buying votes.

batch12 4y ago
> None of these seem to be examples of actual corruption, like buying votes. Why buy votes when you can own the representative directly? Why should someone who donates massive amounts of money to a campaign have more sway over a representative than another constituent. On that note, maybe only those represented by a candidate should be allowed to contribute to that candidate's campaign.
- rosnd 4y ago
  > Why buy votes when you can own the representative directly? Except it doesn't, the donors are just paying for someone to listen to them for a moment. US political donors get a far worse deal than someone paying bribes in an actually corrupt country would. > Why should someone who donates massive amounts of money to a campaign have more sway over a representative than another constituent. Similarly as any friend or acquaintance would have more sway over a representative than another constituent. That's how it works when you hire humans to decide things.
  - batch12 4y ago
    > donors are just paying for someone to listen to them for a moment These donors aren't paying for a sympathetic ear. If the donors didn't get the outcome they wanted they wouldn't donate so much money. They are buying influence that benefits their causes and it's a corrupt practice. Representatives exist to represent their constituents not get rich pandering to other rich people. > Similarly as any friend or acquaintance would have more sway over a representative than another constituent. My friends don't pay me to give me their opinions.
    - rosnd 4y ago
      What exactly is it that you are proposing the donors get in return? "influence"? How do you quantify that? Is it votes? If not votes, then what? Buying "influence" is not corruption. Paying a representative or a senator to take specific actions in the course of their official duties would be. Giving money to a senator and then asking them to call the DHS to push your business partners visa through is strictly not corruption. Anyone who'd call this "grossly corrupt" has never interacted with real corruption.
      - batch12 4y ago
        > Buying "influence" is not corruption. Hard disagree. I don't think we will come together on this one.

by rosnd 4y ago

batch12 4y ago

> None of these seem to be examples of actual corruption, like buying votes. Why buy votes when you can own the representative directly? Why should someone who donates massive amounts of money to a campaign have more sway over a representative than another constituent. On that note, maybe only those represented by a candidate should be allowed to contribute to that candidate's campaign.

rosnd 4y ago
> Why buy votes when you can own the representative directly? Except it doesn't, the donors are just paying for someone to listen to them for a moment. US political donors get a far worse deal than someone paying bribes in an actually corrupt country would. > Why should someone who donates massive amounts of money to a campaign have more sway over a representative than another constituent. Similarly as any friend or acquaintance would have more sway over a representative than another constituent. That's how it works when you hire humans to decide things.
- batch12 4y ago
  > donors are just paying for someone to listen to them for a moment These donors aren't paying for a sympathetic ear. If the donors didn't get the outcome they wanted they wouldn't donate so much money. They are buying influence that benefits their causes and it's a corrupt practice. Representatives exist to represent their constituents not get rich pandering to other rich people. > Similarly as any friend or acquaintance would have more sway over a representative than another constituent. My friends don't pay me to give me their opinions.
  - rosnd 4y ago
    What exactly is it that you are proposing the donors get in return? "influence"? How do you quantify that? Is it votes? If not votes, then what? Buying "influence" is not corruption. Paying a representative or a senator to take specific actions in the course of their official duties would be. Giving money to a senator and then asking them to call the DHS to push your business partners visa through is strictly not corruption. Anyone who'd call this "grossly corrupt" has never interacted with real corruption.
    - batch12 4y ago
      > Buying "influence" is not corruption. Hard disagree. I don't think we will come together on this one.