4 ms·

I'm genuinely conflicted about the Dodd controversy. Like so many other people, I was quick to condemn him for his statement/threat. However, it was comments h

I'm genuinely conflicted about the Dodd controversy. Like so many other people, I was quick to condemn him for his statement/threat. However, it was comments here on HN that made me question just how different it is from, say, me deciding not to contribute to a politician's campaign because I don't like what he has supported. My final feelings are that there's a sliver of difference because (a) I believe that my actions are for the greater good rather than my own self interest, and (b) I'm looking at a larger picture than lobbying over a single issue. But in the end, I've not been able to prove to myself that those differences are sufficiently objective and measurable to be able to sustain the complaint against Dodd.

joshuahedlund 15y ago
There's a difference between saying "You did stuff I didn't like so I won't give you money" and "You didn't do stuff for my industry that I was explicitly expecting ONLY because of my earlier contributions so I'm not going to continue to give you money"
sequoia 15y ago
What's the difference between you and the MPAA? Well, how many 1m dollar bills do you have in your back pocket? ;) Yes, I am saying there is a fundamental difference between an entity giving $100 to a campaign and e.g. $5m (if you add in the RIAA). To ignore that would be like... like saying it would be fair to pit you against Boeing in an airplane building contest. (Kind of a weak simile, sorry.) The point is the field is not level and, most importantly, they are not supposed to offer quid pro quo.
kbutler 15y ago
The difference is the "quid pro quo" - I give you something if you give me something. It's perfectly fine ethically and legally to provide financial support to candidates who support causes you believe in. The problem is when there is an express or implied exchange of official acts for the contribution, as when one says, "Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake," That is an exchange of contributions for official acts. That is unethical and illegal.
jlarocco 15y ago
"I believe that my actions are for the greater good rather than my own self interest," I don't see how that's a good thing. I'd rather you look out for yourself and leave my best interests to me. The MPAA can say they're going for the greater good, too.

joshuahedlund 15y ago

There's a difference between saying "You did stuff I didn't like so I won't give you money" and "You didn't do stuff for my industry that I was explicitly expecting ONLY because of my earlier contributions so I'm not going to continue to give you money"

sequoia 15y ago

What's the difference between you and the MPAA? Well, how many 1m dollar bills do you have in your back pocket? ;) Yes, I am saying there is a fundamental difference between an entity giving $100 to a campaign and e.g. $5m (if you add in the RIAA). To ignore that would be like... like saying it would be fair to pit you against Boeing in an airplane building contest. (Kind of a weak simile, sorry.) The point is the field is not level and, most importantly, they are not supposed to offer quid pro quo.

kbutler 15y ago

The difference is the "quid pro quo" - I give you something if you give me something. It's perfectly fine ethically and legally to provide financial support to candidates who support causes you believe in. The problem is when there is an express or implied exchange of official acts for the contribution, as when one says, "Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake," That is an exchange of contributions for official acts. That is unethical and illegal.

jlarocco 15y ago

"I believe that my actions are for the greater good rather than my own self interest," I don't see how that's a good thing. I'd rather you look out for yourself and leave my best interests to me. The MPAA can say they're going for the greater good, too.