3 ms·

Correlation does not imply causation. An alternative hypothesis is that legislators have fixed ideologies that are not influenced by who their donors are, but

by codex 13y ago

Correlation 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 ago
Not 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 ago
  Your 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?
  - alexqgb 13y ago
    Party line votes tend to happen in relation to ideologically symbolic issues which tend not to be the issues that donors care much about. What's more likely to happen is the representatives will be permitted to vote against their party if the party is assured of a win. So for instance, there's no need to antagonize the conservative-leaning supporters of a Democrat from a swing state by forcing the the rep to vote against his constituents interests. Likewise, if a vote is in the bag, a fair amount of purely symbolic dissent is allowed, which reps can use to placate their most valuable donors and most vocal supporters (even when Congress as a whole is going against them). The real danger for a rep comes from situations where he sits in a "safe" seat, and refuses to take money or show support for a special-interest with business in front of his committee. As long as the seat has been securely gerrymandered (the definition of a safe seat) then there's no danger that a primary challenge will end up replacing the uncooperative rep with a zealot who will go on to lose the seat to the opposing party in the general election, since the general election has, in effect, already been rigged to ensure that the party that drew the electoral maps always wins. For what it's worth few donors are aligned with one party or the other. There are exceptions of course (Unions, for instance, tend to fund Democrats exclusively, and the NRA focuses heavily on Republicans). But generally speaking, donors don't give a fig about the rep's personal points of view. The whole idea that they donate to people with whom they already agree is exactly the kind of malarky that reps would like you to believe. In reality, most donors give judiciously on both sides of the aisle, so that no matter who sits on the committees that govern their business, they're assured of access.

by codex 13y ago

alexqgb 13y ago

Not 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 ago
Your 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?
- alexqgb 13y ago
  Party line votes tend to happen in relation to ideologically symbolic issues which tend not to be the issues that donors care much about. What's more likely to happen is the representatives will be permitted to vote against their party if the party is assured of a win. So for instance, there's no need to antagonize the conservative-leaning supporters of a Democrat from a swing state by forcing the the rep to vote against his constituents interests. Likewise, if a vote is in the bag, a fair amount of purely symbolic dissent is allowed, which reps can use to placate their most valuable donors and most vocal supporters (even when Congress as a whole is going against them). The real danger for a rep comes from situations where he sits in a "safe" seat, and refuses to take money or show support for a special-interest with business in front of his committee. As long as the seat has been securely gerrymandered (the definition of a safe seat) then there's no danger that a primary challenge will end up replacing the uncooperative rep with a zealot who will go on to lose the seat to the opposing party in the general election, since the general election has, in effect, already been rigged to ensure that the party that drew the electoral maps always wins. For what it's worth few donors are aligned with one party or the other. There are exceptions of course (Unions, for instance, tend to fund Democrats exclusively, and the NRA focuses heavily on Republicans). But generally speaking, donors don't give a fig about the rep's personal points of view. The whole idea that they donate to people with whom they already agree is exactly the kind of malarky that reps would like you to believe. In reality, most donors give judiciously on both sides of the aisle, so that no matter who sits on the committees that govern their business, they're assured of access.