7 ms·

In the meta, this article reminds me of what I perceive as a surreal disconnect between the amount of influence lobbyists have in government(s) vs the objective

In the meta, this article reminds me of what I perceive as a surreal disconnect between the amount of influence lobbyists have in government(s) vs the objectively small amount of money that actually is changing hands. If Intuit spends (just) $3.5M to significantly impact decisions that are worth Billions to them and potentially hundreds to every taxpayer (!), I think I'm frustrated that corrupt politicians aren't doing more to leverage their corruption. This kind of illegal influence should cost... at least $100M? Selling everyone out for fractions of a penny on the dollar is frankly just kind of embarrassing. Crime harder, elected reps, if you're going to get out of bed.

pessimizer 4y ago
Politicians are very cheap, but the $3.5M is what was spent legally and openly. Most of the iceberg is hidden underwater. For example, this: > In 2022, several members of Congress called for investigations into the company’s practice of hiring “revolving door” lobbyists who previously held government positions is also bribery.
- SturgeonsLaw 4y ago
  The fact that it's legal is also part of the problem
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    Exactly this. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's not corrupt.
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
Not that I think this change should happen but it's amusing to consider a seeming lack of ambition from people in such positions.
jmoak3 4y ago
Many engineers reading this make a larger salary than these lawmakers. Maybe if the people deciding our laws made enough to not be woo’d by practically a $300 gift card we’d at least make corruption more expensive.
- RajT88 4y ago
  Not taken into account that if they're not a millionaire when they enter congress, they tend to be by the time they leave. Because it's not insider trading if you're a congressman. It's total crap.
  - WesternWind 4y ago
    Yeah, though the actual pay isn't always enough to easily afford a home in your home state and a place in DC for those who aren't already rich.
    - RajT88 4y ago
      That's a fair point - DC property is so expensive, there's a sort of Democratic senator "frat house": https://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/politics/real-alpha-house/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/politics/real-alpha-house/ind...
- lend000 4y ago
  Why should lawmakers get rich at all? It's a public service and honor to hold that power -- an above average wage should be plenty reward (not to mention the millions of discretional fund most high profile offices come with).
  - xboxnolifes 4y ago
    Maybe should be an honor, but it certainly isn't treated as such by near anyone. And it's not about why should they get rich. It's about aligning incentives. Relying on good will does not work long term.
nix23 4y ago
>This kind of illegal influence should cost... at least $100M? A you not on the complete wrong way to equality and same rights for everyone? ;)
a_e_k 4y ago
There's a particular Calvin and Hobbes strip that always comes to mind with articles like this: "I don't know which is worse... that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1992/04/08 https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1992/04/08
jaggederest 4y ago
I found it fascinating to see how far a modest individual contribution gets you in the political process. Less than $1000 gets you an unprompted one on one personal call with the Governor at some length, ~$100 would allow similar access to state-level legislators or local political executives, and senators are only modestly more expensive to garner attention from, certainly a maxed $3,300 personal contribution would absolutely get you direct redress of your grievances, should you desire. At that price we should all purchase access to legislators, it's a screaming bargain.
- dfxm12 4y ago
  Most Americans see lobbyists as dishonest or unethical [0]. With that in mind, I think most Americans would not want to buy a legislator. After all, at some level, the legislator is supposed to represent them anyway... Even if Americans did, since there's a fixed supply of representatives, as demand goes up, so will the price :) 0 - https://news.gallup.com/poll/103123/lobbyists-debut-bottom-honesty-ethics-list.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/103123/lobbyists-debut-bottom-h...
- geodel 4y ago
  Think about 99% uptime vs 99.99999% uptime cost for a service or next day customer support vs 24/7 phone support. If you think it should just a little bit more then, yeah, buying legislators would sound cheap.
- ctchocula 4y ago
  That's surprisingly affordable even for average Joe SWEs in the valley. I can see it being useful for when paperwork gets jammed in the USCIS pipeline for instance.
  - jaggederest 4y ago
    Yes, I was kind of stunned, I made an in-my-opinion modest contribution to a couple people when some equity vested, as a mild form of basic political engagement, and they were prompt and solicitous in reaching out to establish positive relationships. If I ever have a dispute with some bureaucracy, I will definitely do that again as perhaps a 2nd or 3rd step - it's about similar in terms of cost to retaining legal counsel, and I have to imagine a letter from a congressperson would open a lot of doors.
arjunnarayan 4y ago
This disconnect is called the "Tullock Paradox" in Economics, after Gordon Tullock who first asked it in "The Purchase of Politicians" (1972) [couldn't find an online link]. You'll find a more recent discussion in "Why is There so Little Money in U.S. Politics?" (2003). [1] [1] https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/089533003321164976 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/08953300332116497...
- tomp 4y ago
  Much more recent: TOO MUCH DARK MONEY IN ALMONDS (2019) https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in-almonds/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in...
- Natsu 4y ago
  Sometimes I think it's like dark matter, it's just out of the public eye in, I dunno, art sales or cushy jobs for family members that funnel money to one another.
gnulinux 4y ago
Interesting points, but I'm wondering if you're possibly missing the point here. It's not only that Intuit uses their "right" to lobby the government and politicians allow Intuit to exercise this "right" to make money themselves; it's also that politicians ideologically agree with Intuit that Intuit should be charging $X to citizens to file taxes. Some politicians, either superficially, or truly authentically/rationally, think government should not be allowed to do anything a private enterprise can do, and therefore categorically want Intuit to charge us $X as a middle-men instead of government doing the filing, in order for Intuit to turn profits. Consequently, although you're right that politicians have incentive to extort more money from Intuit, they likely want to work with Intuit and come to a balanced compromise so that Intuit is able to make huge profits off of our tax filings.
- medellin 4y ago
  This all makes sense if you ignore that politics are suppose to be representing the people who vote for them. I don’t think I have talked to anyone on any side of the fence that think you should have to pay for filing basic taxes.
  - b112 4y ago
    Uh, no. A politician is supposed to represent all citizens equally, even those which did not vote for them. In a proper democracy, the voter is assessing candidates for a job. Once elected, that job is to do right by all citizens, by doing what they believe is the correct choice, correct way to do their job. We are supposed to be electing someone to make decisions, based on their beliefs. The election is a job interview. anudatt
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    Man, you haven't talked to enough people then. Come up with the most absurd opinion you can about any political topic and you will find a small but aggressive group online that is convinced it is the only rational option. Plenty of conservatives genuinely believe, for whatever reason, that it's impossible for "Government" to do something well. They then elect people who promise to make that reality and then point to the obvious, purposeful struggles of our government as their reasoning.
kmeisthax 4y ago
s/illegal influence/protected 1st amendment speech/g SCOTUS said you can't regulate campaign funding basically at all, because money spent to effect speech is speech, and thus money spent on a political campaign is political speech. If you actually were to say "I will pass this bill for $X", then that would be a bribe, and you could get kicked out of office or go to jail for that. But spending 30 minutes with a lobbyist behind closed doors and them just handing your campaign a check later on? Perfectly legal. The hush-hush nature of the operation means the only way you can squeeze a business for money is by getting everyone else angry at them too so that the business starts throwing campaign contributions around. From the congressperson's side it's less "I sold my vote to this person" and more "If I vote for this, then I won't get all these contributions anymore." The difference between a bribe and a tip is solely in the order of operations.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  > SCOTUS said you can't regulate campaign funding basically at all, because money spent to effect speech is speech, and thus money spent on a political campaign is political speech. Yes, and the SCOTUS is wrong.
  - mdaniel 4y ago
    Welp, you can take that up with ... oh, wait, that'd be Congress :-(
yxwvut 4y ago
Buying senators is surprisingly cheap. This is why I think there's a huge untapped market for democratized/crowdfunded lobbying. I also think that democratization would expedite its demise, which is the end game that would benefit society the most.
- jonyt 4y ago
  Already done in Israel. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobby_99 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobby_99
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  The problem is it isn't just a money thing. A lot of lobbying is about connections, "friends", long time working relationships etc. A random person walking up to an opponent politician with a large check wont get anywhere, no matter how corrupt that politician is. Political funding is absurd in this country, and politicians spend most of their time raising money for the next campaign, meaning a one time check isn't terribly useful to them compared to a long time, implied continued working relationship.
afunk 4y ago
I had an idea for a site that allows you to lobby the gov in a GoFundMe format after realizing how little money is actually moving.
- mdaniel 4y ago
  Sorry, I can't tell if it's "I had an idea, but no one came to the site" or "I had an idea in the shower which I have not yet implemented"? Because I 100% would meet reality where it is and buy my own lobbyist if I could get better outcomes than spitting into the wind at the ballot box
  - afunk 4y ago
    shower idea - i lack the technical skills and connections to actualize my dreams and ideas at present (can someone please help me with frontend). The idea here is that you donate in favor of/against a bill you want. Then representatives that vote favorably to your preference receive a portion of the funds as campaign contributions. If lobbying is so cheap why can't it be done by the people for the people? I see dogs raise more than politicians on GFM.
- Someone1234 4y ago
  It is an idea, the problem is you'd need to trust the middle-men (the lobbyist and brokers). It isn't as simply as "the smallest piece of the pie the better," companies pay a lot of money for well-connected people who can get someone to sit down and talk. So while the public could pump tons of money into a GoLobbyForMe site, how you'd measure success Vs theft is tricky. Plus there's often other corruption less easily combatted, like post public-office jobs, or their spouse/family getting a seat on some board, or similar.
Aunche 4y ago
Most people have a fundamental misunderstanding of how lobbying works. Lobbying money is used to pay the actual lobbyists to gather evidence, prepare presentations, and draft legislation proposals. Only a small percentage of lobbying money goes to the politicians. Usually, it's $1000 or so that the politician will agree to hear out the lobbyist. What actually gets traded at these lobbyist meetings is political capital, not money. "If you agree to these tax incentives, you can brag about creating 10,000 jobs". This is why Bill Gates can't just spend $1 billion to lobby for a carbon tax, despite advocating for one. This would cause a lot of short term pain as the economy needs to readjust with no short term positive benefit, which would be politically disastrous. Edit: Here's another more tangible example. Facebook spent millions to lobby for the government to establish standards for social media. If they can convince the Democrats to formalize guidelines of what constitutes as hate speech, they can offload some of the burden of their moderation decisions. If they can convince Republicans to require social media to become public square, that's even better because then they don't have to hire as many moderators. Unfortunately for Facebook, such a bill has no benefit from either side because now the politicians have to take responsibility for an unpopular act of censorship or viral misinformation campaign. That's why Facebook tried to establish an independent "supreme court" instead.
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  This was really insightful, thank you
- beezlebroxxxxxx 4y ago
  A lot of it is also about seeking regulatory capture. If a governing body does not directly reflect corporate interests, there is usually a lengthy campaign to swivel that governing body into what is essentially an element of corporate protection. A lot of "pro-business" rhetoric is spun up in the revolving door of lobbyists and corporate representatives to governing bodies, and members of those bodies to the corporate world. That's how you get an EPA that protects corporate interests from environmental regulation rather than an EPA that protects the environment from corporate interests.
- thayne 4y ago
  That certainly makes sense for some things, but for taxes it seems surprising that the political capital of creating 10000 jobs is more than the political capital of reducing the stress of filing taxes, saving citizens significant amounts of money on tax services, etc.
slothtrop 4y ago
By the same token could not $3.5M be raised to lobby in the other direction?
bena 4y ago
Not only the stuff other people have said about how that money is actually spent, but... The market sets the prices. Sure, the politicians might want more, but I'm sure there are others who would be just as effective who could want less. Then the political contributions flow to your competitors instead of you. And there are other factors. If you're too obviously corrupt, maybe you get voted out anyway. Maybe you don't even see what you're doing as corruption. Things just happen to align. Or maybe you see it as a win-win. You get something, you do good for your constituents, the lobbying group gets what it wants, etc. The truth is way more complicated than "corpo stooges carrying big sacks of dollars to fat cat politicians".
neilv 4y ago
A journalist once told me that, when they were new, they weren't surprised to learn that corruption was going on in their city, but they were surprised that the amounts of the bribes were so small.
JohnFen 4y ago
I think it was George Will that said "The problem with politicians in America isn't that they can be bought. It's that they can be bought so cheaply."
ren_engineer 4y ago
that's just the down payment. Politicians make the real money when they leave and get a spot on the board of directors or some other fake role that pays them 7 figures for doing nothing. Or their spouse gets some favorable job or business deals. Feinstein and Pelosi are both worth hundreds of millions via their husband's business deals there's also a thriving business of laundering money through politician's shitty books they have ghostwritten for them
- berniedurfee 4y ago
  This is my understanding as well. The majority of the money between politicians and business entities or wealthy individuals moves out of band and out of sight. Lobbyists are the glue that makes those deals happen. So the $3.5M went to pay the lobbyists to negotiate the much bigger deals that ultimately sway the opinions of the politicians.
PaulHoule 4y ago
I wonder if the post-Watergate "campaign finance reform" was not about stopping the influence of lobbyist but rather putting in limits that make it cheaper to buy politicians. If the limits came off and it became more expensive it might put an end to it. If it cost $10 to get $1 in tax savings people wouldn't bother turning the tax code into Swiss cheese,

pessimizer 4y ago

Politicians are very cheap, but the $3.5M is what was spent legally and openly. Most of the iceberg is hidden underwater. For example, this: > In 2022, several members of Congress called for investigations into the company’s practice of hiring “revolving door” lobbyists who previously held government positions is also bribery.

SturgeonsLaw 4y ago
The fact that it's legal is also part of the problem
- JohnFen 4y ago
  Exactly this. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's not corrupt.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago

Not that I think this change should happen but it's amusing to consider a seeming lack of ambition from people in such positions.

jmoak3 4y ago

Many engineers reading this make a larger salary than these lawmakers. Maybe if the people deciding our laws made enough to not be woo’d by practically a $300 gift card we’d at least make corruption more expensive.

RajT88 4y ago
Not taken into account that if they're not a millionaire when they enter congress, they tend to be by the time they leave. Because it's not insider trading if you're a congressman. It's total crap.
- WesternWind 4y ago
  Yeah, though the actual pay isn't always enough to easily afford a home in your home state and a place in DC for those who aren't already rich.
  - RajT88 4y ago
    That's a fair point - DC property is so expensive, there's a sort of Democratic senator "frat house": https://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/politics/real-alpha-house/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/politics/real-alpha-house/ind...
lend000 4y ago
Why should lawmakers get rich at all? It's a public service and honor to hold that power -- an above average wage should be plenty reward (not to mention the millions of discretional fund most high profile offices come with).
- xboxnolifes 4y ago
  Maybe should be an honor, but it certainly isn't treated as such by near anyone. And it's not about why should they get rich. It's about aligning incentives. Relying on good will does not work long term.

nix23 4y ago

>This kind of illegal influence should cost... at least $100M? A you not on the complete wrong way to equality and same rights for everyone? ;)

a_e_k 4y ago

There's a particular Calvin and Hobbes strip that always comes to mind with articles like this: "I don't know which is worse... that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1992/04/08 https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1992/04/08

jaggederest 4y ago

I found it fascinating to see how far a modest individual contribution gets you in the political process. Less than $1000 gets you an unprompted one on one personal call with the Governor at some length, ~$100 would allow similar access to state-level legislators or local political executives, and senators are only modestly more expensive to garner attention from, certainly a maxed $3,300 personal contribution would absolutely get you direct redress of your grievances, should you desire. At that price we should all purchase access to legislators, it's a screaming bargain.

dfxm12 4y ago
Most Americans see lobbyists as dishonest or unethical [0]. With that in mind, I think most Americans would not want to buy a legislator. After all, at some level, the legislator is supposed to represent them anyway... Even if Americans did, since there's a fixed supply of representatives, as demand goes up, so will the price :) 0 - https://news.gallup.com/poll/103123/lobbyists-debut-bottom-honesty-ethics-list.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/103123/lobbyists-debut-bottom-h...
geodel 4y ago
Think about 99% uptime vs 99.99999% uptime cost for a service or next day customer support vs 24/7 phone support. If you think it should just a little bit more then, yeah, buying legislators would sound cheap.
ctchocula 4y ago
That's surprisingly affordable even for average Joe SWEs in the valley. I can see it being useful for when paperwork gets jammed in the USCIS pipeline for instance.
- jaggederest 4y ago
  Yes, I was kind of stunned, I made an in-my-opinion modest contribution to a couple people when some equity vested, as a mild form of basic political engagement, and they were prompt and solicitous in reaching out to establish positive relationships. If I ever have a dispute with some bureaucracy, I will definitely do that again as perhaps a 2nd or 3rd step - it's about similar in terms of cost to retaining legal counsel, and I have to imagine a letter from a congressperson would open a lot of doors.

arjunnarayan 4y ago

This disconnect is called the "Tullock Paradox" in Economics, after Gordon Tullock who first asked it in "The Purchase of Politicians" (1972) [couldn't find an online link]. You'll find a more recent discussion in "Why is There so Little Money in U.S. Politics?" (2003). [1] [1] https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/089533003321164976 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/08953300332116497...

tomp 4y ago
Much more recent: TOO MUCH DARK MONEY IN ALMONDS (2019) https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in-almonds/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in...
Natsu 4y ago
Sometimes I think it's like dark matter, it's just out of the public eye in, I dunno, art sales or cushy jobs for family members that funnel money to one another.

gnulinux 4y ago

Interesting points, but I'm wondering if you're possibly missing the point here. It's not only that Intuit uses their "right" to lobby the government and politicians allow Intuit to exercise this "right" to make money themselves; it's also that politicians ideologically agree with Intuit that Intuit should be charging $X to citizens to file taxes. Some politicians, either superficially, or truly authentically/rationally, think government should not be allowed to do anything a private enterprise can do, and therefore categorically want Intuit to charge us $X as a middle-men instead of government doing the filing, in order for Intuit to turn profits. Consequently, although you're right that politicians have incentive to extort more money from Intuit, they likely want to work with Intuit and come to a balanced compromise so that Intuit is able to make huge profits off of our tax filings.

medellin 4y ago
This all makes sense if you ignore that politics are suppose to be representing the people who vote for them. I don’t think I have talked to anyone on any side of the fence that think you should have to pay for filing basic taxes.
- b112 4y ago
  Uh, no. A politician is supposed to represent all citizens equally, even those which did not vote for them. In a proper democracy, the voter is assessing candidates for a job. Once elected, that job is to do right by all citizens, by doing what they believe is the correct choice, correct way to do their job. We are supposed to be electing someone to make decisions, based on their beliefs. The election is a job interview. anudatt
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  Man, you haven't talked to enough people then. Come up with the most absurd opinion you can about any political topic and you will find a small but aggressive group online that is convinced it is the only rational option. Plenty of conservatives genuinely believe, for whatever reason, that it's impossible for "Government" to do something well. They then elect people who promise to make that reality and then point to the obvious, purposeful struggles of our government as their reasoning.

kmeisthax 4y ago

s/illegal influence/protected 1st amendment speech/g SCOTUS said you can't regulate campaign funding basically at all, because money spent to effect speech is speech, and thus money spent on a political campaign is political speech. If you actually were to say "I will pass this bill for $X", then that would be a bribe, and you could get kicked out of office or go to jail for that. But spending 30 minutes with a lobbyist behind closed doors and them just handing your campaign a check later on? Perfectly legal. The hush-hush nature of the operation means the only way you can squeeze a business for money is by getting everyone else angry at them too so that the business starts throwing campaign contributions around. From the congressperson's side it's less "I sold my vote to this person" and more "If I vote for this, then I won't get all these contributions anymore." The difference between a bribe and a tip is solely in the order of operations.

JohnFen 4y ago
> SCOTUS said you can't regulate campaign funding basically at all, because money spent to effect speech is speech, and thus money spent on a political campaign is political speech. Yes, and the SCOTUS is wrong.
- mdaniel 4y ago
  Welp, you can take that up with ... oh, wait, that'd be Congress :-(

yxwvut 4y ago

Buying senators is surprisingly cheap. This is why I think there's a huge untapped market for democratized/crowdfunded lobbying. I also think that democratization would expedite its demise, which is the end game that would benefit society the most.

jonyt 4y ago
Already done in Israel. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobby_99 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobby_99
mrguyorama 4y ago
The problem is it isn't just a money thing. A lot of lobbying is about connections, "friends", long time working relationships etc. A random person walking up to an opponent politician with a large check wont get anywhere, no matter how corrupt that politician is. Political funding is absurd in this country, and politicians spend most of their time raising money for the next campaign, meaning a one time check isn't terribly useful to them compared to a long time, implied continued working relationship.

afunk 4y ago

I had an idea for a site that allows you to lobby the gov in a GoFundMe format after realizing how little money is actually moving.

mdaniel 4y ago
Sorry, I can't tell if it's "I had an idea, but no one came to the site" or "I had an idea in the shower which I have not yet implemented"? Because I 100% would meet reality where it is and buy my own lobbyist if I could get better outcomes than spitting into the wind at the ballot box
- afunk 4y ago
  shower idea - i lack the technical skills and connections to actualize my dreams and ideas at present (can someone please help me with frontend). The idea here is that you donate in favor of/against a bill you want. Then representatives that vote favorably to your preference receive a portion of the funds as campaign contributions. If lobbying is so cheap why can't it be done by the people for the people? I see dogs raise more than politicians on GFM.
Someone1234 4y ago
It is an idea, the problem is you'd need to trust the middle-men (the lobbyist and brokers). It isn't as simply as "the smallest piece of the pie the better," companies pay a lot of money for well-connected people who can get someone to sit down and talk. So while the public could pump tons of money into a GoLobbyForMe site, how you'd measure success Vs theft is tricky. Plus there's often other corruption less easily combatted, like post public-office jobs, or their spouse/family getting a seat on some board, or similar.

Aunche 4y ago

Most people have a fundamental misunderstanding of how lobbying works. Lobbying money is used to pay the actual lobbyists to gather evidence, prepare presentations, and draft legislation proposals. Only a small percentage of lobbying money goes to the politicians. Usually, it's $1000 or so that the politician will agree to hear out the lobbyist. What actually gets traded at these lobbyist meetings is political capital, not money. "If you agree to these tax incentives, you can brag about creating 10,000 jobs". This is why Bill Gates can't just spend $1 billion to lobby for a carbon tax, despite advocating for one. This would cause a lot of short term pain as the economy needs to readjust with no short term positive benefit, which would be politically disastrous. Edit: Here's another more tangible example. Facebook spent millions to lobby for the government to establish standards for social media. If they can convince the Democrats to formalize guidelines of what constitutes as hate speech, they can offload some of the burden of their moderation decisions. If they can convince Republicans to require social media to become public square, that's even better because then they don't have to hire as many moderators. Unfortunately for Facebook, such a bill has no benefit from either side because now the politicians have to take responsibility for an unpopular act of censorship or viral misinformation campaign. That's why Facebook tried to establish an independent "supreme court" instead.

nonethewiser 4y ago
This was really insightful, thank you
beezlebroxxxxxx 4y ago
A lot of it is also about seeking regulatory capture. If a governing body does not directly reflect corporate interests, there is usually a lengthy campaign to swivel that governing body into what is essentially an element of corporate protection. A lot of "pro-business" rhetoric is spun up in the revolving door of lobbyists and corporate representatives to governing bodies, and members of those bodies to the corporate world. That's how you get an EPA that protects corporate interests from environmental regulation rather than an EPA that protects the environment from corporate interests.
thayne 4y ago
That certainly makes sense for some things, but for taxes it seems surprising that the political capital of creating 10000 jobs is more than the political capital of reducing the stress of filing taxes, saving citizens significant amounts of money on tax services, etc.

slothtrop 4y ago

By the same token could not $3.5M be raised to lobby in the other direction?

bena 4y ago

Not only the stuff other people have said about how that money is actually spent, but... The market sets the prices. Sure, the politicians might want more, but I'm sure there are others who would be just as effective who could want less. Then the political contributions flow to your competitors instead of you. And there are other factors. If you're too obviously corrupt, maybe you get voted out anyway. Maybe you don't even see what you're doing as corruption. Things just happen to align. Or maybe you see it as a win-win. You get something, you do good for your constituents, the lobbying group gets what it wants, etc. The truth is way more complicated than "corpo stooges carrying big sacks of dollars to fat cat politicians".

neilv 4y ago

A journalist once told me that, when they were new, they weren't surprised to learn that corruption was going on in their city, but they were surprised that the amounts of the bribes were so small.

JohnFen 4y ago

I think it was George Will that said "The problem with politicians in America isn't that they can be bought. It's that they can be bought so cheaply."

ren_engineer 4y ago

that's just the down payment. Politicians make the real money when they leave and get a spot on the board of directors or some other fake role that pays them 7 figures for doing nothing. Or their spouse gets some favorable job or business deals. Feinstein and Pelosi are both worth hundreds of millions via their husband's business deals there's also a thriving business of laundering money through politician's shitty books they have ghostwritten for them

berniedurfee 4y ago
This is my understanding as well. The majority of the money between politicians and business entities or wealthy individuals moves out of band and out of sight. Lobbyists are the glue that makes those deals happen. So the $3.5M went to pay the lobbyists to negotiate the much bigger deals that ultimately sway the opinions of the politicians.

PaulHoule 4y ago

I wonder if the post-Watergate "campaign finance reform" was not about stopping the influence of lobbyist but rather putting in limits that make it cheaper to buy politicians. If the limits came off and it became more expensive it might put an end to it. If it cost $10 to get $1 in tax savings people wouldn't bother turning the tax code into Swiss cheese,