Hacker News Reader

Comment by erulabs | Hacker News Reader

Regardless of if congresspeople were or were not “acting on behalf of FTX”, I find this style of argument absolutely counter productive.

I know nothing of Company or Congressman. Congressman does something that benefits Company. Implication of editorial: Congressman is on payroll of Company. Conclusion of this reader: perhaps Congressman had some belief that lead them to act this way? Perhaps they’re not money grubbing sociopaths?

The vast majority of journalism today is leading me so stupidly by the reigns to a particular watering hole that my gut instinct is to buck the lead and sprint into the desert to die. It should not be so easy to be the devil’s advocate, and I’m so tired of defending the devil.

View on HN

If donating money to politicians didn’t buy influence companies wouldn’t do it.

That’s the cynical take, sure. But you must acknowledge there is a non cynical take. I’m so inclined to believe this is influence buying until I see that presented as the only possibility.

The non-cynical take removes the clearly defined heroes and villains in the narrative. Who wants to spend their time consuming mass media if it is just going to be as boring and confusing as real life?

Congress members also agree with the cynical take.

Quote from elizabethwarren.com:

I will break the NRA’s stranglehold on Congress by passing sweeping anti-corruption legislation and eliminating the filibuster so that our nation can no longer be held hostage by a small group of well-financed extremists

I will always love Warren because I got A’s in the classes that used her textbooks. However, that quote is just dumb. Does she really think the God and Guns caucus votes the way they do because of NRA funding? On some other issue - sure, but the gun lovers seem pretty sincere to me.

Some of the more moderate Republicans fear the NRA running ads against them if they supported popular gun control legislation.

That sounds completely compatible with the NRA being sincere about opposing gun control.

Moderate Republicans are called RINOs and Conservatives tend to dislike them.

That isn't limited to guns or because of the gun lobby. It's because moderate Republicans might as well be Democrats.

Why else would the companies donate?

Ostensibly, to support candidates they think will have a positive impact on society. Naive maybe, but it is a possibility at least that people donate honestly to support causes they think are good.

If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, swims like a duck, shits like a duck and confit like a duck (lipsmack) -- its pretty reasonable to assume it may be a duck and not ponder about how it could be a zebra.

If it talks like a doctor, wears a white coat like a doctor, has a stethescope like a doctor...that person still better have a medical license, because otherwise, who knows if he or she is a doctor.

It's usually the other way around in the more honest democracies. Companies support people that somewhat align with them.

The price of having a politician on your side (ie lax financial regulation) is lower if he already believes in lax regulations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com