11 ms·

That's the essence of contemporary lobbying. Most legislators can be persuaded with campaign contributions (the carrot) but those that can't get threatened with

by alexqgb 12y ago

That's the essence of contemporary lobbying. Most legislators can be persuaded with campaign contributions (the carrot) but those that can't get threatened with the stick, which comes in the form of a previously unheard of but suddenly flush primary opponent. Add gerrymandering to the mix, and this tactic becomes even harder to resist, since the effective sidelining of an opposing party means that no matter what else happens, the seat in question stays with the side that already holds it. This is what people mean by "safe" seats, by the way. They're safe for the party. Particular incumbents, not so much. So yes. If you have a realistic hope of getting what you want it's because you're known to have the power to end careers. If legislators refuse to cooperate, their prospects dim. If an agency gets uncooperative, the legislators who oversee it turn the budget screws, causing pain and wrecking livelihoods until the backer with the biggest stick wins. These are the mechanics of regulatory capture, and they're in operation every day. Obviously, all of this deeply depressing, and provides an excellent argument for getting private finance out of elections altogether, since that really is the mechanism upon which American-style corruption depends. And while we're at it, de-rigging the vote with non-partisan redistricting and establishing a nation-wide version of the (pre-gutted) Voting Rights Act would go a long way in fostering a government of, by, and for the people. But in the meantime, when our systems is less like a democracy and more like an oligarchy, getting what you want means playing by the rules that exist. And that means lobbying with both carrot and stick. They hit you, you hit back. And not only do you hit back harder, you hit back so hard that they will never get up again. That's what the SOPA/PIPA backlash did: threatened a sweeping act of maximum violence to an unprecedented number of careers. It was brutal and it was ugly, but it worked. And it did so when there's not much else that does.

nickff 12y ago
>"our systems is less like a democracy and more like an oligarchy" What if the problem is simply that very few voters care about the issue, and that even less would be willing to change their vote over this issue?
- girvo 12y ago
  Which is possibly (probably?) correct in this case, and many other issues we as tech people care about. But that doesn't dispute the facts in his post; it's merely a tangential thing. For example, most regular voters care about copyright extensions, but the lobbyists do, and so it gets extended time after time.
  - latj 12y ago
    > Which is possibly (probably?) correct in this case, and many other issues we as tech people care about. There are plenty of issues that average 'tech people' dont care about that other professions might. I have not seen any evidence that as a whole technical people care more about whats going on in the world. When voter turn out is low, it is not because people dont care about the issues. It is because they dont believe their vote is being counted, cant distinguish between candidates, or simply dont think any candidate can lead to the kind of governance they would prefer.
- dontmindifido 12y ago
  There is a disconnect between voting and policy that will need to be addressed before you are able to call it a democracy again.
juliangamble 12y ago
Lawrence Lessig is working on a people-power initiative to fix the problem of getting private finance out of elections: https://mayday.us/ https://mayday.us/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayday_PAC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayday_PAC
- gibsonf1 12y ago
  Eric Cantor proved that you can't buy an election with money. Ideas ultimately are what count in an election, and to the extent that any good ideas are removed from the public realm with this scheme, we all lose. The last thing we want is the government regulating money spent on political speech - the corruption potential is absolutely enormous - hence the First Amendment.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - knowtheory 12y ago
    If you genuinely couldn't by elections with money, there wouldn't be so much money flowing into politics. Money alone isn't sufficient to guarantee an election outcome, you still have to execute.
    - bmelton 12y ago
      That people think it works enough to pay money for it isn't proof that it does. I dub this the 'Ion Bracelet Effect' (though there's probably a better name for it already). "'American Crossroads, the super PAC founded by Karl Rove, spent $104 million in the general election, but none of its candidates won. The United States Chamber of Commerce spent $24 million backing Republicans in 15 Senate races; only two of them won. Sheldon Adelson, the casino mogul, spent $53 million on nine Republican candidates, eight of whom lost.' It was, as the paper noted, 'A Landslide Loss for Big Money.'"[1] "When a candidate doubled their spending, holding everything else constant, they only got an extra one percent of the popular vote. It’s the same if you cut your spending in half, you only lose one percent of the popular vote. So we’re talking about really large swings in campaign spending with almost trivial changes in the vote."[2] [1] - http://reason.com/archives/2014/07/14/dear-liberals-stop-freaking-out-about-th/1 http://reason.com/archives/2014/07/14/dear-liberals-stop-fre... [2] - http://freakonomics.com/2012/01/12/does-money-really-buy-elections-a-new-marketplace-podcast/ http://freakonomics.com/2012/01/12/does-money-really-buy-ele...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
brianpgordon 12y ago
I see that you also heard that episode of This American Life.
- alexqgb 12y ago
  Actually I didn't. The mechanics of congressional corruption have been a long running interest of mine. But I think Ira Glass is great and if what I'm saying here is the essence of what he's saying too, that's a welcome development. For the longest time, this stuff was of interests only to wonk's wonks. Now it's slowly seeping into common awareness. That's a vital step on the way to (eventual) change. If you've got a link to Ira's show, please don't hesitate to post it.
  - 2arrs2ells 12y ago
    Pretty sure this is the episode: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/take-the-money-and-run-for-office http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/t...
EGreg 12y ago
I'm always curious as to why people think politicians are more motivated by reelection prospects that, say, their legacy or actually representing their personal views or convictions. I mean, I can understand why the ones that make it into office are the ones that fight hard to get elected in the first place, but once they are there, why wouldn't you expect a lot of them to take pride in actually representing their districts and really doing a good job in a representative democracy? I've always wondered why reelection is more important to these people supposedly then every other incentive! Can someone elaborate as to why this assumption is always made?
- pepr 12y ago
  I think it's simply self-preservation. If they don't get reelected, they lose their job. Few people want that. Would you lose your job over your views on issues like gun control? May you would, but a lot (maybe majority) of people wouldn't. Look at the stories of people in former communist countries. Majority of them didn't want to even risk their jobs over much, much more serious issues than gun control, NSA, or abortion.
  - EGreg 12y ago
    Bureaucrats don't want to lose ther jobs. But for elected politicians the job is to do what they said for a specified term. If doing their job properly means losing it, then maybe the incentives are all wrong. We already have term limits for presidents, what about senators and congresspeople?
- Rapzid 12y ago
  Also, being a congressman is VERY prestigious. Just having the job and all the perks that come with it(money, status, security, influence, etc) is very desirable.
  - EGreg 12y ago
    I guess to me prestige is secondary to actually doing the job. After all with the congressman's connections he or she can continue to have an impact afterwards. Look at retired US presidents and vice presidents who want to continue to make a difference! Sometimes it's even easier and more pleasant for them once they're out of office. People also say that regulators are captured by the industry via opportunities they get in a revolving door. They are offered cushy positions at the industry after they stop being politicians, in exchange for favorable votes. I could see this as possibly being a bigger motivator than re election. Maybe there should be some consequences to not voting according to the policies you ran on. Buy in any case, if most politicians are awayed by lobbying, then being one politician who isn't won't make a huge difference.

by alexqgb 12y ago

nickff 12y ago

>"our systems is less like a democracy and more like an oligarchy" What if the problem is simply that very few voters care about the issue, and that even less would be willing to change their vote over this issue?

girvo 12y ago
Which is possibly (probably?) correct in this case, and many other issues we as tech people care about. But that doesn't dispute the facts in his post; it's merely a tangential thing. For example, most regular voters care about copyright extensions, but the lobbyists do, and so it gets extended time after time.
- latj 12y ago
  > Which is possibly (probably?) correct in this case, and many other issues we as tech people care about. There are plenty of issues that average 'tech people' dont care about that other professions might. I have not seen any evidence that as a whole technical people care more about whats going on in the world. When voter turn out is low, it is not because people dont care about the issues. It is because they dont believe their vote is being counted, cant distinguish between candidates, or simply dont think any candidate can lead to the kind of governance they would prefer.
dontmindifido 12y ago
There is a disconnect between voting and policy that will need to be addressed before you are able to call it a democracy again.

juliangamble 12y ago

Lawrence Lessig is working on a people-power initiative to fix the problem of getting private finance out of elections: https://mayday.us/ https://mayday.us/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayday_PAC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayday_PAC

gibsonf1 12y ago
Eric Cantor proved that you can't buy an election with money. Ideas ultimately are what count in an election, and to the extent that any good ideas are removed from the public realm with this scheme, we all lose. The last thing we want is the government regulating money spent on political speech - the corruption potential is absolutely enormous - hence the First Amendment.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- knowtheory 12y ago
  If you genuinely couldn't by elections with money, there wouldn't be so much money flowing into politics. Money alone isn't sufficient to guarantee an election outcome, you still have to execute.
  - bmelton 12y ago
    That people think it works enough to pay money for it isn't proof that it does. I dub this the 'Ion Bracelet Effect' (though there's probably a better name for it already). "'American Crossroads, the super PAC founded by Karl Rove, spent $104 million in the general election, but none of its candidates won. The United States Chamber of Commerce spent $24 million backing Republicans in 15 Senate races; only two of them won. Sheldon Adelson, the casino mogul, spent $53 million on nine Republican candidates, eight of whom lost.' It was, as the paper noted, 'A Landslide Loss for Big Money.'"[1] "When a candidate doubled their spending, holding everything else constant, they only got an extra one percent of the popular vote. It’s the same if you cut your spending in half, you only lose one percent of the popular vote. So we’re talking about really large swings in campaign spending with almost trivial changes in the vote."[2] [1] - http://reason.com/archives/2014/07/14/dear-liberals-stop-freaking-out-about-th/1 http://reason.com/archives/2014/07/14/dear-liberals-stop-fre... [2] - http://freakonomics.com/2012/01/12/does-money-really-buy-elections-a-new-marketplace-podcast/ http://freakonomics.com/2012/01/12/does-money-really-buy-ele...

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

brianpgordon 12y ago

I see that you also heard that episode of This American Life.

alexqgb 12y ago
Actually I didn't. The mechanics of congressional corruption have been a long running interest of mine. But I think Ira Glass is great and if what I'm saying here is the essence of what he's saying too, that's a welcome development. For the longest time, this stuff was of interests only to wonk's wonks. Now it's slowly seeping into common awareness. That's a vital step on the way to (eventual) change. If you've got a link to Ira's show, please don't hesitate to post it.
- 2arrs2ells 12y ago
  Pretty sure this is the episode: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/take-the-money-and-run-for-office http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/t...

EGreg 12y ago

I'm always curious as to why people think politicians are more motivated by reelection prospects that, say, their legacy or actually representing their personal views or convictions. I mean, I can understand why the ones that make it into office are the ones that fight hard to get elected in the first place, but once they are there, why wouldn't you expect a lot of them to take pride in actually representing their districts and really doing a good job in a representative democracy? I've always wondered why reelection is more important to these people supposedly then every other incentive! Can someone elaborate as to why this assumption is always made?

pepr 12y ago
I think it's simply self-preservation. If they don't get reelected, they lose their job. Few people want that. Would you lose your job over your views on issues like gun control? May you would, but a lot (maybe majority) of people wouldn't. Look at the stories of people in former communist countries. Majority of them didn't want to even risk their jobs over much, much more serious issues than gun control, NSA, or abortion.
- EGreg 12y ago
  Bureaucrats don't want to lose ther jobs. But for elected politicians the job is to do what they said for a specified term. If doing their job properly means losing it, then maybe the incentives are all wrong. We already have term limits for presidents, what about senators and congresspeople?
Rapzid 12y ago
Also, being a congressman is VERY prestigious. Just having the job and all the perks that come with it(money, status, security, influence, etc) is very desirable.
- EGreg 12y ago
  I guess to me prestige is secondary to actually doing the job. After all with the congressman's connections he or she can continue to have an impact afterwards. Look at retired US presidents and vice presidents who want to continue to make a difference! Sometimes it's even easier and more pleasant for them once they're out of office. People also say that regulators are captured by the industry via opportunities they get in a revolving door. They are offered cushy positions at the industry after they stop being politicians, in exchange for favorable votes. I could see this as possibly being a bigger motivator than re election. Maybe there should be some consequences to not voting according to the policies you ran on. Buy in any case, if most politicians are awayed by lobbying, then being one politician who isn't won't make a huge difference.