5 ms·
Lawmakers Who Upheld NSA Phone Spying Received Double the Defense Industry Cash
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- rayiner 13y agoConservative, pro-security candidates get more donations from the defense industry: news at 11. In other news: befuddled HN poster can't believe that Wired ran an entire articled based on confusing correlation with causation.
- guelo 13y agoYou're the one declaring that causation runs in only one direction. Meanwhile, the article only stated the correlation.
- codex 13y agoThe article quotes, "How can we trust legislators to vote in the public interest when they are dependent on industry campaign funding to get elected? Our broken money and politics system forces lawmakers into a conflict of interest between lawmakers’ voters and their donors". This strongly implies that the article's point of view that the link is causal.
- crusso 13y agoWhere did they say that this was causation? Correlation is enough to make this an interesting article. Does it matter that much if: a) lawmakers who are funded by the defense industry vote in favor of the defense industry or b) lawmakers who vote for the defense industry are kept in office through funds from the defense industry Cause or effect seem to be pretty unpleasant.
- ams6110 13y agoThis vote did not break on conservative/liberal lines. There were a number of conservatives who opposed it (as distinct from "establishment" Republicans) and a number of Dems who supported it. We get the government we vote for. The defense industry can contribute money, but they can't vote (other than as individuals comprising the same). If you're opposed to what your representatives vote for, get involved. Support candidates who share your views. With Twitter, Facebook, and other social media the old, expensive part of a campaign (traditional media advertising) is less and less important, particularly among the under-30 age group.
- a3n 13y agoSort of. You don't get to vote for anyone (other than a feel-good write-in) unless money has put them in front of you.
- samstave 13y agoI think this is showing that the awareness of the military-industrial-complex is really starting to hit the zeitgeist of the actual mass public. While these types of issues are completely bvious and known by a very large fraction of the populous, it was still a fraction - now it is simply inescapable by anyone just how much control the defense/intelligence industry/military has over the USG.
- detcader 13y agoMerely "conservative"? Are you sure? http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/25/democratic-establishment-nsa http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/25/democrat...
- rayiner 13y agoThere are lots of conservative democrats, especially in rust-belt states. E.g. only 2 of Illinois's 12 democratic Congressmen voted for the Amash bill.
- coffeemug 13y agoAs the famous xkcd comic aptly points out, "correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'".
- md224 13y ago> pro-security candidates get more donations from the defense industry My intuition tells me that these kinds of contributions are a bad thing, a potential vector for money to influence who gets elected and how they vote. Do you disagree with that?
- mtgx 13y agoWhy stuff like this isn't considered bribing in US boggles my mind. They're receiving money for voting a certain way.
- robotcookies 13y agoIt is absolutely bribery. And as an American, I'm glad there are people in other places who see it for exactly what it is.
- a3n 13y agoAnd sometimes it gets pretty damned blatant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boehner#Connections_to_lobbyists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boehner#Connections_to_lo... "In June 1995, Boehner distributed campaign contributions from tobacco industry lobbyists on the House floor as House members were weighing how to vote on tobacco subsidies"
- crusso 13y agoIsn't voting a certain way the only real reason why anyone makes campaign contributions to legislative candidates?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- rhizome 13y agoBecause the people being bribed are the ones who vote on the laws that define illegal bribery.
- cdwhite 13y agoThis sort of stuff doesn't require the politicians in question to change their minds. Think of it as a two-fold selection effect. First, the candidate who already holds views of which the defense industry approves, receives campaign contributions therefrom and is therefore more likely to win. Second, I would think that defense companies are hardly likely to donate to a politician of the Ron Paul stripe when they are in a race against someone more ... conventional. As rayiner pointed out elswhere in the thread, correlation does not imply causation. This mechanism may have deleterious effects on our political discourse and decision-making, but it's hard to call something that doesn't involve a politician changing his mind as a result of money "bribery". This mechanism is a systems problem, it seems to me, not a problem with individuals. Now I'm sure this is far from the only thing that's going on. (In particular, I think I remember Lawrence Lessig talking about how money may or may not buy a change of views, but it surely buys access. You pick up the phone for the guy that contributed $LEGAL_LIMIT to your campaign.) Moreover, I haven't ruled out that the money changed their minds---just provided an alternate hypothesis. Nonetheless, this toy model provides a not-totally-implausible explanation for things we observed, without invoking bribery. Edited for style.
- tswartz 13y agofrom the article, Daniel Newman sums it up nicely: “How can we trust legislators to vote in the public interest when they are dependent on industry campaign funding to get elected? Our broken money and politics system forces lawmakers into a conflict of interest between lawmakers’ voters and their donors”
- detcader 13y agoPeople and organizations like Lawrence Lessig and Democracy Matters have been on this issue forever. It's the root issue. The revolving door too. Pass Fair Elections in NY state this year, and then every other state. That's a start.
- rayiner 13y agoThe only problem with that narrative is that it doesn't agree with the evidence. The article begs the question that defunding the NSA is what voters want. But the polls, while they're pretty much all over the map, don't support that conclusion. E.g. the latest Pew poll of whether people "approve" of the NSA program basically matches the margin by which the Amash bill lost: http://www.people-press.org/2013/07/26/few-see-adequate-limits-on-nsa-surveillance-program http://www.people-press.org/2013/07/26/few-see-adequate-limi.... How can you conjure up this narrative of politicians choosing between their donors and their voters, when the evidence suggests that the politicians are voting the way their voters want? Especially considering that because of gerrymandering, conservative rural voters have a substantially greater representation in the House than they do in public polling.
- andy_ppp 13y agoThis is brilliantly put and has actually made me feel better, for a second. Then I realised that private defence firms and the NSA are, clearly, one and the same organisation at this point. This idea chilled me to my core.
- rhizome 13y agoWhat's the story with Rep Moran, the only top-10 defense $ recipient who voted for the amendment?
- cwisecarver 13y agoThe cynic in me says, he's from Northern Virginia and he's getting his money anyway because the contractors need to be near DC. The non-cynic says he's just a good guy.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y agoMaybe he voted last and wanted to show off to his constituents.
- toyg 13y agoOne often-overlooked side of these votes is that there is an element of horse-trading with party leadership. Let's say the party asks you to eat your hat 5 times and vote for crappy stuff; in exchange, you'll ask the party to be left free to vote against the grain a couple of times or so, when you really need to show off with the electorate or your conscience won't let you sleep. It's perfectly plausible that Moran voted for the amendment because he had built up credits on other votes, had info that the amendment was unlikely to pass anyway, and so he obtained permission to showboat for his own electorate. He might have done that exactly because he knew he'd be attacked for being in the pockets of BigDefCo -- he's a Dem, after all. This is a very likely scenario. Or maybe he could be a good guy and I'm too cynic to expect good from people. Good guys in politics are very rare, to say the least.
- malandrew 13y agoI've always wondered on the psychology of these voting decisions. Investigative journalists outside looking in can can easily see the forest for the trees, but I am curious as to whether or not the politicians themselves are acutely aware of these conflicts of interest or if it is subconscious.
- VladRussian2 13y agowhat in American politics is surprising for me is that such a meager sum (vs. the scale of decisions these lawmakers take and even the scale of their personal wealth, etc..) as 20K is supposedly able to affect/sway their decision. To compare, 20K is something that sometimes may sway a junior engineer in the Valley take this job instead of this - compare that with decisions affecting distribution of some billions of dollars and lives of millions of people. I'm really puzzled by that.
- rdtsc 13y ago> 20K is supposedly able to affect/sway their decision. It happens to be the market rate unfortunately. And that goes to tell you much invested or interested these people are in upholding any ideals. They could vote either way, personally they've been around the block and in bed with so many lobbyists they just care about furthering the political career. For them in this case it is getting $0 or getting 20K for a vote they probably don't/can't fully understand and are not personally invested in. They see 20K and in their head that might = nice weekend in Vegas or new car for my son.
- jivatmanx 13y agoThere is a conflict of interest issue when companies funded almost entirely by government contracts uses money in this manner. The government could easily specify as a term in their contracts that are not allowed to do this. Considering the amount of funds involved, I think this is more than reasonable.
- smokeyj 13y agoOn the topic of conflict of interests, why should the government educate the youth about the proper roles of government? I wonder how the Patriot Act and the loss of our liberties will be portrayed in text books. I would guess in a very sympathetic light towards the cause of safety and security. Maybe the next generation will see privacy advocates as terrorists attempting to defraud them of their beloved police state.
- codex 13y agoNot under current court precedent, which treats corporate money as free speech. As long as corporations are treated as people, restrictions on political spending by corporations would abridge free speech. In my personal view, if corporations were people, they'd be classified as sociopaths, which is yet another reason not to let them give money to politicians.
- jivatmanx 13y agoI'm not a lawyer, but this is just a condition on a voluntary contract, which nobody is forcing the companies to sign. Individuals routinely sign things like NDA's which are abridge free speech.
- codex 13y agoCorrelation does not imply causation. An alternative hypothesis is that legislators have fixed ideologies that are not influenced by who their donors are, but receive money from donors who have similar ideologies. After all, donors don't want to waste their money--they'll contribute to those legislators who already think like they do. Birds of a feather flock together, etc. Unfortunately it's impossible to conduct a controlled experiment, and donor influence probably varies by legislator and by donor.
- alexqgb 13y agoNot so. A larger percentage of donations have little to do with the individual views and predilections of representatives, and a tremendous amount to do with the committees on which they sit. Not only is there a a precisely defined hierarchy of assignments (ranked according to much money they're expected to bring in), but the allocation of these seats is handled to ensure the overall viability of the party. So for instance, a junior representative from a swing district will be assigned to a high-dollar committee, on the assumption that this will give him access to a higher volume of donor funds, and make his seat more defensible. What he thinks, personally, is irrelevant. What he oversees is what matters. And if he squanders the opportunity given to him by his party's bosses, he'll be kicked out of that seat, and see it handed to a representative who has the motivation and mercenary disposition required to exploit it fully. Some committees have negative value. That is to say, sitting one one signals a lack of influence, making assignment to these Congressional Siberias a real damper in the dialing-for-dollars game that these folks play, if not all day, then at least every day. Interestingly the Science & Technology Committee is one of these. Any actually valuable science and tech (e.g. telecommunications) is handled elsewhere. The grim consolation in seeing total anti-science idiots getting assigned to these committees is that it indicates that even Congress doesn't take them seriously. The optics are terrible, of course, but that's another matter.
- codex 13y agoYour post is fascinating. Is it the case that the committee member must vote the party line on committee matters, or appease the donors? What happens when those are in conflict? Does the member get a pass to vote the donor line and rely on the full chamber to vote the party line?