3 ms·
but it'd be much more effective to spend that money on lobbyists Maybe, maybe not. Lobbying is very expensive, I suspect some times it would be cheaper to lob
by fghh45sdfhr3 14y ago
but it'd be much more effective to spend that money on lobbyists
Maybe, maybe not.
Lobbying is very expensive, I suspect some times it would be cheaper to lobby, other times it would be cheaper to sabotage the system.
Which is cheaper could depend on many things, like is anyone lobbying against you, vs. is the system designed in such a way that it could potentially adjust itself to defends itself or not.
- Turing_Machine 14y agoYou'd be surprised at how cheap it is to buy a legislator in most cases.
- dalke 14y agoLet's suppose that it is easy to buy a legislator. The problem here is that there's also lots of money being used to sway legislators towards increased security, so you'll be in a bidding war.
- RickHull 14y agoCare to elaborate on a few such cases?
- Turing_Machine 14y agoLook at how much Hollywood paid to Lamar Smith for SOPA: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00001811&type=I http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=... It looks like the going rate for a Congressman who is a powerful committee chair is around $100K. A rank-and-file Congressman can usually be had for $10K or so.
- jd 14y agoIt can be insanely profitable. NPR on how some lobbying efforts yield returns of 22,000 percent: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/01/06/144737864/forget-stocks-or-bonds-invest-in-a-lobbyist http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/01/06/144737864/forget-s...