3 ms·

> Yes, that doesn't happen. I invested 15 seconds into a search query. Former Members Dick Armey. Tom Daschle. Tom Foley. Trent Lott. Once, these politicos

> Yes, that doesn't happen. I invested 15 seconds into a search query. Former Members Dick Armey. Tom Daschle. Tom Foley. Trent Lott. Once, these politicos ranked among Congress' most powerful members. Today, they share another distinction: They're lobbyists (or "senior advisors" performing very similar work). And they're hardly alone. Dozens of former members of Congress now receive handsome compensation from corporations and special interests as they attempt to influence the very federal government in which they used to serve. ref: https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/top.php?display=Z https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/top.php?display=Z This is an incomplete list of just one body of lawmakers who went to work for just one industry. It's a very limited reference to the much, much larger whole. >If a legislator agrees with you, you want to keep them Although I included people tied to legislators (and their interests) you opted to limit your response to just legislators and even that seemed more platitude than substance. > Also, campaign donations are capped at like $5000 So what? This falsely implies no donor can get more than $5k into any one campaign fund. Tossing it out there as primarily defining detail seems disingenuous. It omits non-cash contributions. It omits donations to traditional PACs, Super PACs, 527s, political parties, 501(c)4,5 & 6. It omits all the possible avenues of getting money to candidates that someone with a CapHill political background almost certainly knows. It does dovetail nicely with an alternate narrative about revolving doors not existing, however.

astrange 3y ago
> This is an incomplete list of just one body of lawmakers who went to work for just one industry. It's a very limited reference to the much, much larger whole. Those people are a combination of 1. really old and 2. lost an election. You can't keep people around forever, even if you might want to. (It also implies they're effective as lobbyists, which I don't think is necessarily true.) > This falsely implies no donor can get more than $5k into any one campaign fund. Those other things aren't the campaign fund, they're largely separate funds running separate campaigns and not controlled by the candidate. So they can't be used to directly pay the candidate. Also, as I said, 1. money doesn't actually win elections and 2. if it did, it's Bernie and fellow non-corporate-Dem candidates who'd actually be winning, because small donor fundraising is more effective than this stuff is. There are some straight up bribery scandals, but I think Bob Menendez is an exception that proves the rule and is going to lose his office based on his literal piles of gold bars bribery. It is, however, actually the case with SCOTUS judges that they straight up take bribes and nobody can stop them.

astrange 3y ago

> This is an incomplete list of just one body of lawmakers who went to work for just one industry. It's a very limited reference to the much, much larger whole. Those people are a combination of 1. really old and 2. lost an election. You can't keep people around forever, even if you might want to. (It also implies they're effective as lobbyists, which I don't think is necessarily true.) > This falsely implies no donor can get more than $5k into any one campaign fund. Those other things aren't the campaign fund, they're largely separate funds running separate campaigns and not controlled by the candidate. So they can't be used to directly pay the candidate. Also, as I said, 1. money doesn't actually win elections and 2. if it did, it's Bernie and fellow non-corporate-Dem candidates who'd actually be winning, because small donor fundraising is more effective than this stuff is. There are some straight up bribery scandals, but I think Bob Menendez is an exception that proves the rule and is going to lose his office based on his literal piles of gold bars bribery. It is, however, actually the case with SCOTUS judges that they straight up take bribes and nobody can stop them.