5 ms·

First, I'd like to say that what follows is in no way an attempt to justify what Dodd said, or find excuses for him. I believe what he said was chocking. Howev

First, I'd like to say that what follows is in no way an attempt to justify what Dodd said, or find excuses for him. I believe what he said was chocking. However, it does raise questions about lobbies in general. I'm not american, so when I arrived here, I was surprised by how widespread the phenomenon was, and I've been trying to understand the reasons behind it. From what I read, lobbies basically give money to politicians for their campaigns is that right? My first question is: why do they need that money? I mean, where I'm from (France), politicians don't spend a tenth of what their american counterparts spend for there campaign. So how did the US arrive to a point where so much money is needed to win an election? My only guess is that they noticed that the probability of being elected was proportional to their media visibility. Meaning that some people vote for the guy they see the most on tv. And when I say "some people", I mean a lot of people. So my second question is: "Is our voting behavior not responsible for the phenomenon of lobbying"? Again, this is an external point of view. Please do tell me if I'm missing something. Edit: grammar

Decathect 15y ago
It's an arms race. The ideal position is a. spend as little as possible and b. outspend your opponent. This inevitably results in spiraling escalation that harms both parties. The obvious solution that the US has avoided and France has embraced(1) is enforceable limits on spending. Like many applications of the prisoner's dilemma, the existence of external authority limiting the freedom of participants actually results in a better outcome for everyone involved. 1. This is the entirety of what I know about French campaign finance as of five minutes ago: http://www.loc.gov/law/help/campaign-finance/france.php http://www.loc.gov/law/help/campaign-finance/france.php
ambler0 15y ago
Well, a more cynical explanation might be that this money barrier constitutes a filter for keeping politicians who aren't bought out of the process. That is, it's a quite intentional state of affairs. Politicians who try to run honest campaigns are shut out of the process. I don't know if anyone remembers 2000, but Nader wasn't even allowed in to watch the debates, let alone participate. In my view, the only answer to all of this is 100% publicly funded elections.
- anamax 15y ago
  > In my view, the only answer to all of this is 100% publicly funded elections. And what are you going to do about newspapers that promote candidates? How about movies that promote a candidate or party? Can I make a sign and put it in my front yard with my money? How about if my neighbor and I decide to put up a bigger sign across the border between our lawns? Yes, I know, to make an omelet, you've got to break a few eggs. However, breaking eggs doesn't mean that there's going to be an omelet.
  - Peaker 15y ago
    How about disallowing political ads on TV and newspapers for a few months before election, except for publicly funded ones in secured slots for that purpose?
    - skymt 15y ago
      And what about political TV programming and editorials? Should those be censored as well?
      - Peaker 15y ago
        In Israel, where I live, some forms of political speech in political TV programming and editorials is disallowed in the pre-election time period.
        learc83 15y ago
        That would require a constitutional amendment: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

Decathect 15y ago

It's an arms race. The ideal position is a. spend as little as possible and b. outspend your opponent. This inevitably results in spiraling escalation that harms both parties. The obvious solution that the US has avoided and France has embraced(1) is enforceable limits on spending. Like many applications of the prisoner's dilemma, the existence of external authority limiting the freedom of participants actually results in a better outcome for everyone involved. 1. This is the entirety of what I know about French campaign finance as of five minutes ago: http://www.loc.gov/law/help/campaign-finance/france.php http://www.loc.gov/law/help/campaign-finance/france.php

ambler0 15y ago

Well, a more cynical explanation might be that this money barrier constitutes a filter for keeping politicians who aren't bought out of the process. That is, it's a quite intentional state of affairs. Politicians who try to run honest campaigns are shut out of the process. I don't know if anyone remembers 2000, but Nader wasn't even allowed in to watch the debates, let alone participate. In my view, the only answer to all of this is 100% publicly funded elections.

anamax 15y ago
> In my view, the only answer to all of this is 100% publicly funded elections. And what are you going to do about newspapers that promote candidates? How about movies that promote a candidate or party? Can I make a sign and put it in my front yard with my money? How about if my neighbor and I decide to put up a bigger sign across the border between our lawns? Yes, I know, to make an omelet, you've got to break a few eggs. However, breaking eggs doesn't mean that there's going to be an omelet.
- Peaker 15y ago
  How about disallowing political ads on TV and newspapers for a few months before election, except for publicly funded ones in secured slots for that purpose?
  - skymt 15y ago
    And what about political TV programming and editorials? Should those be censored as well?
    - Peaker 15y ago
      In Israel, where I live, some forms of political speech in political TV programming and editorials is disallowed in the pre-election time period.
      - learc83 15y ago
        That would require a constitutional amendment: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."