4 ms·

The problem is that political donors are influencing the law. How can you change the law when the ones that need to lose the most influence are currently the on

by rcme 4y ago

The problem is that political donors are influencing the law. How can you change the law when the ones that need to lose the most influence are currently the ones with the most influence? These people are the problem.

bcrosby95 4y ago
Yep, this is why discussing this issue can be a hilarious exercise in circular frustration. The counter argument boils down to "don't hate the player, hate the game", except these players are lobbying to keep the game alive, so don't tell me I can't hate those players.
- Zigurd 4y ago
  There is no contradiction in hating both, protesting both, or by other means frustrating what these people want to get away with. Don't let them.
newsclues 4y ago
Are the people using their power and money to influence the law the problem? Or are the people elected to office who then are swayed by the influence of money and power to shift the laws in favour of the rich and powerful? Is asking for corruption the root of the problem, or is the root of the problem the people in power who use corruption to enrich themselves?
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  What if it’s possible for both to be problems?
  - anonym29 4y ago
    newsclues seems to be seeking the root of the problem. I'm no US history expert, but I don't figure there were PACs and SuperPACs influencing electoral politics when this country was founded. The congresspeople seem to have been here before the corrupt lobbying industry arrived, which would suggest corruption within the members of congress themselves arose first. Please feel free to correct me if wrong.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      I assure you, lobbyists existed from the beginning. The rich - heavily represented in the Founding Fathers - have always had friends and "friends" looking to use their influence. Go outside the US and you'll see the same phenomenon; Viking chiefs will have had their buddies, the French kings had their courtiers, etc. PACs and SuperPACs exist because the rich willed them into existence.
      - anonym29 4y ago
        I believe you, but do you know of any books or resources where I can learn more about this?
    - twoodfin 4y ago
      There has been money and corrupt back-room dealing in politics as long as money, politics, and back rooms have been around.
      - anonym29 4y ago
        I believe you, but do you know of any books or resources where I can learn more about this?
- chiefalchemist 4y ago
  Donors don't write the laws. They don't take an oath to serve WTP. And so on. They are a symptom. They are not the root problem.
  - rcme 4y ago
    > Donors don't write the laws. You’ve said that multiple times, as if you can just will it to be true through repetition. Of course, the statement is categorically false. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/10/us/politics/crypto-industry-states-legislation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/10/us/politics/crypto-indust... https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/us/alec-a-tax-exempt-group-mixes-legislators-and-lobbyists.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/us/alec-a-tax-exempt-grou... https://archive.nytimes.com/dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/banks-lobbyists-help-in-drafting-financial-bills/ https://archive.nytimes.com/dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/...
    - camgunz 4y ago
      Indeed it's very false. Lobbyists oftentimes push legislation their clients wrote. You gotta be pretty ignorant to believe otherwise.
twoodfin 4y ago
There’s really no significant nexus documented here between Yass’ political giving and the legality of his tax avoidance strategy. He’s a free-market libertarian who hates paying taxes. He donates to groups and candidates that agree with his philosophy. Maybe in 2025 a GOP trifecta that had help winning from Yass (and many, many others) will zero out all capital gains taxes or something, but that’s not corrupt, it’s just the long term policy see-saw tilting a different way.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  Joe Biden could offer a pardon for anyone who manages to assassinate a a conservative within a federal jurisdiction and it would be completely legal within our system, however I suspect some would still find it problematic.
- camgunz 4y ago
  It's literally corruption. Your constituency is not your donors; it's your voters. The fact that this raises no concerns to the majority of Americans speaks to how cynical we all are.
chiefalchemist 4y ago
No. They are not the problem. They don't makes the laws. They don't accept the donations. They don't take an oath to serve The People. Etc. These people are a symptoms. To believe otherwise is simply a false mental model. These "OMG Mr X..." and "OMG Ms Y..." and "OMG Company Z" - and the accused nearly always GOP'ers (which certainly doesn't reflect reality, odd huh) - is a waste of time. How do I know it's a waste of time? Because we get one or so per month and...nothing is discussed. Nothing changes. In fact, the drone of stating the obvious just switches people off. How convenient. The truth is, these distractions are another spin job manufacturered by The Politics Industrial Complex. So perhaps we start the discussion there then as that the foundation on which all other nonsense is build? https://freakonomics.com/podcast/im-your-biggest-fan/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/im-your-biggest-fan/ Finally, Trump said it best, via Chappelle on SNL. It's at the end of the monologue if you haven't seen it already. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_m-gO0HSCYk https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_m-gO0HSCYk
- rcme 4y ago
  > No. They are not the problem. They don't makes the laws. They don't accept the donations. They don't take an oath to serve The People. Etc. These people are a symptoms. To believe otherwise is simply a false mental model. They donate money to the people who do take the oath to serve and make the laws. If you hire a hitman, you’re still guilty of murder. If you pay to get bad politicians elected, you’re still responsible for the outcome.

by rcme 4y ago

bcrosby95 4y ago

Yep, this is why discussing this issue can be a hilarious exercise in circular frustration. The counter argument boils down to "don't hate the player, hate the game", except these players are lobbying to keep the game alive, so don't tell me I can't hate those players.

Zigurd 4y ago
There is no contradiction in hating both, protesting both, or by other means frustrating what these people want to get away with. Don't let them.

newsclues 4y ago

Are the people using their power and money to influence the law the problem? Or are the people elected to office who then are swayed by the influence of money and power to shift the laws in favour of the rich and powerful? Is asking for corruption the root of the problem, or is the root of the problem the people in power who use corruption to enrich themselves?

ceejayoz 4y ago
What if it’s possible for both to be problems?
- anonym29 4y ago
  newsclues seems to be seeking the root of the problem. I'm no US history expert, but I don't figure there were PACs and SuperPACs influencing electoral politics when this country was founded. The congresspeople seem to have been here before the corrupt lobbying industry arrived, which would suggest corruption within the members of congress themselves arose first. Please feel free to correct me if wrong.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    I assure you, lobbyists existed from the beginning. The rich - heavily represented in the Founding Fathers - have always had friends and "friends" looking to use their influence. Go outside the US and you'll see the same phenomenon; Viking chiefs will have had their buddies, the French kings had their courtiers, etc. PACs and SuperPACs exist because the rich willed them into existence.
    - anonym29 4y ago
      I believe you, but do you know of any books or resources where I can learn more about this?
  - twoodfin 4y ago
    There has been money and corrupt back-room dealing in politics as long as money, politics, and back rooms have been around.
    - anonym29 4y ago
      I believe you, but do you know of any books or resources where I can learn more about this?
chiefalchemist 4y ago
Donors don't write the laws. They don't take an oath to serve WTP. And so on. They are a symptom. They are not the root problem.
- rcme 4y ago
  > Donors don't write the laws. You’ve said that multiple times, as if you can just will it to be true through repetition. Of course, the statement is categorically false. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/10/us/politics/crypto-industry-states-legislation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/10/us/politics/crypto-indust... https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/us/alec-a-tax-exempt-group-mixes-legislators-and-lobbyists.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/us/alec-a-tax-exempt-grou... https://archive.nytimes.com/dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/banks-lobbyists-help-in-drafting-financial-bills/ https://archive.nytimes.com/dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/...
  - camgunz 4y ago
    Indeed it's very false. Lobbyists oftentimes push legislation their clients wrote. You gotta be pretty ignorant to believe otherwise.

twoodfin 4y ago

There’s really no significant nexus documented here between Yass’ political giving and the legality of his tax avoidance strategy. He’s a free-market libertarian who hates paying taxes. He donates to groups and candidates that agree with his philosophy. Maybe in 2025 a GOP trifecta that had help winning from Yass (and many, many others) will zero out all capital gains taxes or something, but that’s not corrupt, it’s just the long term policy see-saw tilting a different way.

hotpotamus 4y ago
Joe Biden could offer a pardon for anyone who manages to assassinate a a conservative within a federal jurisdiction and it would be completely legal within our system, however I suspect some would still find it problematic.
camgunz 4y ago
It's literally corruption. Your constituency is not your donors; it's your voters. The fact that this raises no concerns to the majority of Americans speaks to how cynical we all are.

chiefalchemist 4y ago

No. They are not the problem. They don't makes the laws. They don't accept the donations. They don't take an oath to serve The People. Etc. These people are a symptoms. To believe otherwise is simply a false mental model. These "OMG Mr X..." and "OMG Ms Y..." and "OMG Company Z" - and the accused nearly always GOP'ers (which certainly doesn't reflect reality, odd huh) - is a waste of time. How do I know it's a waste of time? Because we get one or so per month and...nothing is discussed. Nothing changes. In fact, the drone of stating the obvious just switches people off. How convenient. The truth is, these distractions are another spin job manufacturered by The Politics Industrial Complex. So perhaps we start the discussion there then as that the foundation on which all other nonsense is build? https://freakonomics.com/podcast/im-your-biggest-fan/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/im-your-biggest-fan/ Finally, Trump said it best, via Chappelle on SNL. It's at the end of the monologue if you haven't seen it already. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_m-gO0HSCYk https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_m-gO0HSCYk

rcme 4y ago
> No. They are not the problem. They don't makes the laws. They don't accept the donations. They don't take an oath to serve The People. Etc. These people are a symptoms. To believe otherwise is simply a false mental model. They donate money to the people who do take the oath to serve and make the laws. If you hire a hitman, you’re still guilty of murder. If you pay to get bad politicians elected, you’re still responsible for the outcome.