Hacker News Reader

In a perfect world, paying them salary would hopefully make them ignore individuals/companies offering them donations in exchange for favorable legislation because they already were making a good wage.

In the real world, it's just a $261,000 bonus.

View on HN

They horde money for campaign (ads). The notion that they are doing a Scrooge McDuck in taxpayer money is generally false. I'm not putting the onus on the taxpayer, but attack ads and the like are extremely effective and... expensive. Their number one goal is to get (re)elected and money=>ads is the most effective way to do it. Standing on principle and making articulated arguments just polarizes.

This is why in parliamentary systems the MPs get a wage and get campaign funding (IIRC respective to their previous campaign share, IE the incumbent gets the most).

What I don't get there is that they still get payoffs, but we're talking a private jet flight versus $2 million in cash.

I get what you are saying, but Congress has had a salary longer than attack ads.

You're right. But, my point is there is no amount of money we can reasonably pay them that will come close to the money they require to get re-elected, which is more important to them than anything else.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com