10 ms·

> Elected officials do what they think the voters want (as affirmed by getting re-elected). There was a time when I thought this. Some observations cast strong

> Elected officials do what they think the voters want (as affirmed by getting re-elected). There was a time when I thought this. Some observations cast strong doubt on it. Primarily: how close congressional votes track with major campaign contributions and the revolving door where major donors later reward officials who voted for their interests It's difficult to see how voters can compete with this, particularly while info about these routine arrangements rarely reaches voters.

thesuperbigfrog 2y ago
I agree with you. In the United States, the Citizens United ruling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC) basically legalized the corporate takeover of government and buyout of elected government officials in the name of free speech. "Elected officials do what they think the voters want (as affirmed by getting re-elected)." should be: "Elected officials do what corporate sponsors want and say that they are doing what voters want (as affirmed by getting campaign finance donations by corporate sponsors to help them get re-elected)." > It's difficult to see how voters can compete with this, particularly while info about these routine arrangements rarely reaches voters. Exactly. This puts elected government officials in the role of the Dungeons and Dragons Warlock class: "Warlock patrons are powerful entities that grant mortals access to their power in exchange for a pact that binds the warlock to their patron's will." [1] They serve at the pleasure of their patron which means they are not serving "we the people". It is legalized corruption that puts profits and power above people and the good of the nation. [1] https://www.thegamer.com/dungeons-and-dragons-dnd-roleplay-warlocks-patron-guide/ https://www.thegamer.com/dungeons-and-dragons-dnd-roleplay-w...
- jfengel 2y ago
  Thing is, what CU enables is advertising. They can't give money to a candidate, or even to a PAC that the candidate controls. CU buys candidates by buying voters. In the end, the voters have a choice to turf out the politician. They don't. Maybe that's not what voters "really" want deep in their hearts. But they vote, and that's all anybody can really know. I care about that more than I care about what they tell pollsters.
  - watwut 2y ago
    It literally pays campaign in slight disguise. Simply, in politics you can't compete without campaign. Simple as that, you get corporate takeover because of corporate ability to pay much more.
- eadmund 2y ago
  > the Citizens United ruling … basically legalized the corporate takeover of government and buyout of elected government officials in the name of free speech. No, it didn’t: it said that the First Amendment protects the right of American citizens to air movies and advertisements critical of political candidates. The First Amendment literally says, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press’: a law which abridges the freedom of speech and of the press is thus blatantly unconstitutional.
  - slater 2y ago
    Right, and when people rightfully criticize the Cit United ruling, they are specifically and emphatically speaking only about "movies and advertisements critical of political candidates", no other reasons. /s
  - watwut 2y ago
    Yes it did and then it slapped barely believable excuse on it. Like common, this had zero to do with freedom of speech or freedom. It was about power and that is it.
jfengel 2y ago
Voters vote for free. If they want something different they can vote for it. They can tell pollsters whatever they want. And what the candidates hear, and what I hear, is how they vote. If they're sending that politician back, then they can't disapprove all that much.
- sebastien_b 2y ago
  [dead]
ChuckMcM 2y ago
At some point I saw some material that purportedly computed "Voting Power" as a function of population scaled by economic demographics. It defined someone with a full time job and the option to take some time off to vote on a Tuesday without economic cost a voting power of 1.0V (i.e. One Vote) and went on to define people with full time hourly job where it 'cost' them to vote as .85V, down to single caregivers and unhoused people at 0.5V. On the other side of the scale people in management as 2V (they influence people who work for them to vote like they do), senior leadership at 10V (they have "extra" money to fund additional campaign activities to drive votes), and above that 50V for people who aren't constrained by "work." I would guess billionaires would be 100V or something. This was in response to a anti-gerrymandering legislation where defining a district to have more voting power for your party while still having an even distribution of individuals representing different parties. Pretty evil IMHO.

thesuperbigfrog 2y ago

I agree with you. In the United States, the Citizens United ruling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC) basically legalized the corporate takeover of government and buyout of elected government officials in the name of free speech. "Elected officials do what they think the voters want (as affirmed by getting re-elected)." should be: "Elected officials do what corporate sponsors want and say that they are doing what voters want (as affirmed by getting campaign finance donations by corporate sponsors to help them get re-elected)." > It's difficult to see how voters can compete with this, particularly while info about these routine arrangements rarely reaches voters. Exactly. This puts elected government officials in the role of the Dungeons and Dragons Warlock class: "Warlock patrons are powerful entities that grant mortals access to their power in exchange for a pact that binds the warlock to their patron's will." [1] They serve at the pleasure of their patron which means they are not serving "we the people". It is legalized corruption that puts profits and power above people and the good of the nation. [1] https://www.thegamer.com/dungeons-and-dragons-dnd-roleplay-warlocks-patron-guide/ https://www.thegamer.com/dungeons-and-dragons-dnd-roleplay-w...

jfengel 2y ago
Thing is, what CU enables is advertising. They can't give money to a candidate, or even to a PAC that the candidate controls. CU buys candidates by buying voters. In the end, the voters have a choice to turf out the politician. They don't. Maybe that's not what voters "really" want deep in their hearts. But they vote, and that's all anybody can really know. I care about that more than I care about what they tell pollsters.
- watwut 2y ago
  It literally pays campaign in slight disguise. Simply, in politics you can't compete without campaign. Simple as that, you get corporate takeover because of corporate ability to pay much more.
eadmund 2y ago
> the Citizens United ruling … basically legalized the corporate takeover of government and buyout of elected government officials in the name of free speech. No, it didn’t: it said that the First Amendment protects the right of American citizens to air movies and advertisements critical of political candidates. The First Amendment literally says, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press’: a law which abridges the freedom of speech and of the press is thus blatantly unconstitutional.
- slater 2y ago
  Right, and when people rightfully criticize the Cit United ruling, they are specifically and emphatically speaking only about "movies and advertisements critical of political candidates", no other reasons. /s
- watwut 2y ago
  Yes it did and then it slapped barely believable excuse on it. Like common, this had zero to do with freedom of speech or freedom. It was about power and that is it.

jfengel 2y ago

Voters vote for free. If they want something different they can vote for it. They can tell pollsters whatever they want. And what the candidates hear, and what I hear, is how they vote. If they're sending that politician back, then they can't disapprove all that much.

sebastien_b 2y ago
[dead]

ChuckMcM 2y ago

At some point I saw some material that purportedly computed "Voting Power" as a function of population scaled by economic demographics. It defined someone with a full time job and the option to take some time off to vote on a Tuesday without economic cost a voting power of 1.0V (i.e. One Vote) and went on to define people with full time hourly job where it 'cost' them to vote as .85V, down to single caregivers and unhoused people at 0.5V. On the other side of the scale people in management as 2V (they influence people who work for them to vote like they do), senior leadership at 10V (they have "extra" money to fund additional campaign activities to drive votes), and above that 50V for people who aren't constrained by "work." I would guess billionaires would be 100V or something. This was in response to a anti-gerrymandering legislation where defining a district to have more voting power for your party while still having an even distribution of individuals representing different parties. Pretty evil IMHO.