Hacker News Reader

Comment by matasar | Hacker News Reader

I wonder if there's some correlation/causation confusion in stories like this. Do the special interests donate to sympathetic candidates, or do the donations influence the candidates unduly? I always thought it was some combination of both, but the exact combination is a mystery to me.

View on HN

I was about to say something similar. For example, imagine if someone posted a topic saying (hypothetically) "Obama received more campaign funds from gay/lesbian organizations than McCain" (replace gay/lesbian with pro-choice, gun control, whatever). I doubt it would be interpreted as "He is in their pockets". It feels wrong to cast aspersions on someone's beliefs the moment they receive funding from some organization.

Sometimes the mere -appearance- of a conflict of interest is nearly as bad as an actual conflict of interest. Citizens in a democracy should be able to believe with confidence that their elected representatives are doing what they think is right, rather than doubt whether their elected representatives are really doing what's right for those who give them big campaign contributions.

The unfortunate thing is Sen. McCain portrays himself as standing up against the lobbyists and special interests but he's still taking the money. His votes are still favorable to them. Seems really hypocritical to me or at least it makes him look really bad even if he's not doing anything shady this time.

I think the special interests donate to folks they know they can influence. (Everything in government is about getting the votes they need, right?)

Which may be why Obama got a lot of donations from individual taxpayers and not multi billion dollar corporations.

Or they donate to people they know are already sympathetic to their cause, and who have maximal PR and regulatory influence. Why would you spend $1 on John Barrasso if you could instead give that dollar to John McCain?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com