It hurts my soul every time I reminded that companies have no cap on how much they can 'donate' to politicians. Imagine a world where there was no money in politics.
We don't have to use our imagination. This sort of experiment is being run in multiple countries around the globe.
You can think of it as tantamount to one's network, and the amount of influence within that network. Basically, "it's not what you know, it's who you know".
Source- lived in Shanghai for 5+ years.
when you bribe a teacher for a better grade, you aren't utilizing a relationship to induce a change in outcome, you are utilizing money, money that holds value independent of who is providing the bribe.
edit:i am making the assumption that parent read at least the wiki blurb of what the parent is replying to.
It has stated policy goals that are basically about creating an environment that's good for the firm's business and then gives a 50:50 split between the two major parties for federal campaigns.
I just can't get too excited about this being a bad thing.
"During the original oral argument, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart (representing the FEC) argued that under Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the government would have the power to ban books if those books contained even one sentence expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate and were published or distributed by a corporation or labor union. In response to this line of questioning, Stewart further argued that under Austin the government could ban the digital distribution of political books over the Amazon Kindle or prevent a union from hiring an author to write a political book."
Isn't that an insane conjecture? This exchange by itself probably lost the FEC the case.
>Imagine a world where there was no money in politics.
Such a world never existed, does not exist, and will never exist. Politics are a center of power. You can ban money all you want, but all you'll accomplish is create a 'black market'. I posit that you do not want to live in such a world.
The same is true of many areas of society. Medical doctors, company executives, the police, etc. all have power and there's good money involved. Still we have laws against fraud, insider trading, bribery, abuse of power, and so forth. While there are transgressions, by and large things seem to work, and when we find new kinds of transgressions, the reaction is not to throw our hands up and say "it'll always be like this!" but to fix the laws.
Which is to say: I don't get the defeatism about regulation here. Laws work. Making actions illegal and threatening a hefty prison term is an effective way of reducing their occurrence.
Now it may be hard to get such laws passed, but that's another story.
See Bloomberg, Hilary (outspent Trump 2:1). Many other examples of well-funded politicians failing.
Note that money also buys a lot of analysis, message testing, etc. to figure out which version of your word people like best.
> See Bloomberg, Hilary (outspent Trump 2:1). Many other examples of well-funded politicians failing.
Sure, having deeper pockets doesn't guarantee you'll win (particularly if you're a dark horse), but it is the way to bet.
It sounds like you're arguing that democracy is better if the politicians don't know what the people want?
Ironically enough I believe that the current democracy we live in is effectively quite close to the original democracy, as it manifested in the city-state of Athens and wider ancient Greece. Only 3% of the total population had a vote: namely those with family titles or enough wealth.[ß]
These days we'd call it plutocracy or oligarchy.
ß: It doesn't really matter what the general population does with their votes when less than 3% get to choose what options are on the ballot in the first place.
Ask yourself: who were responsible for putting him on the ballot in the first place? And why? Because from looking where I am (read: not in the US), the correct choice in 2016 elections would have been "neither". But that's not a choice available - choosing not to vote is entirely different from voting "none of the above".
I think money is still a problem in politics, but I think the model that money is the driving contributor is too simple.
As an aside, “neither” is an option in the U.S. but too many people have been convinced a third party vote is equivalent to throwing their vote away and thus it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy
> As an aside, “neither” is an option in the U.S. but too many people have been convinced a third party vote is equivalent to throwing their vote away
You missed my point. The option I'm talking about is not "neither". It's "none of the above". You need a way to actively express that you, as a voter, have considered the available named options and rejected all of them. Not by wasting a protest vote or abstaining to vote in the first place.
I don't believe I'm saying this, but I honestly think an Australian-style mandatory voting regime would do well in the US. At least that would force the states' hands and make voter suppression a hell of a lot harder to attempt. Combine that with ballots that always have "none of the above" option, and you might start to see something shift.
What would you think happens to legitimacy if "all options were bad" gets a larger share of votes than your supposedly winning candidate?
Thanks for clarifying on the "neither" issue. I would be an advocate of a "none of the above" vote option. In my mind, it does much as the same as if people voted third party. I wasn't equivocating a third party vote to a protest vote. At a certain point, when the percentage of third party votes reaches a certain tipping point those who feel like it's a wasted vote may be convinced it's a viable option. But I also think there are other (possibly more pragmatic) voting schemes like ranked voting that are being implemented at lower levels in the country.
I would be strongly against mandatory voting and I think it could make the system even worse. I think it's important to recognize that you also have the right not to vote just like you have the right not to own a firearm, have the right not to speak up even though you have the freedom of speech etc. A "right" is not equivalent to an "obligation". I think there's issues with uninformed votes as it is and this could be exacerbated by mandatory voting. Sometimes the appropriate choice is to refrain from voting rather than casting an uninformed vote.
Forcing people to vote is a seriously bad idea. They have no reason to vote responsibly, and likely will vote maliciously, carelessly, or randomly.
Having the right to vote includes the right to choose not to vote.
> It sounds like you're arguing that democracy is better if the politicians don't know what the people want?
I have no particular objection to politicians knowing what people want. But that wasn't how I think the money is being spent.
Rather, the use I was pointing out is centered on figuring out what people want to hear.
So, less "what positions would the voters prefer we take" and more "How can we package the policies our donors prefer such that voters choose us over the opposition". Spin, in other words.
Unfortunately, most of the people who complain about this stuff don't actually care enough to vote against it, and they become part of the problem themselves.
https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-...