cross-posted from: https://lemmy.whynotdrs.org/post/399058
- Donate the maximum amount legally allowed (as an individual).
- Tell the Member that you would like to become a bundler.
(A bundler is a person or small group of people who pool or aggregate contributions “from the community” and then deliver them in one lump sum to a political campaign).
- Once you have raised a sizeable amount, deliver the money to the Senator so they can use it wisely. In turn,
trade stock options based on insider information to the tune of millions, be super glad that you helped the democratic process!1% vs the 99%
Relevant
The world is such a sad place to live. This comes from USA, just think about all the third world countries, it’s not any better but worse sadly.
I used to have this idea of shady lobbyists skulking around Washington with big bags of money, trying to entice wayward congresspeople and lure them to the dark side. Then a friend of mine did a short internship in the office of a congressman, and I found out it’s actually very much the other way around.
You’d think a congressperson spends most of their time reading, writing, debating, and voting on the laws on which the country is run. That’s their job description. That’s what we’re taught in school that they do. But what they actually spend most of their time doing is cold-calling people and soliciting donations. So if you define their job by what they spend the largest amount of time doing, your congressperson and your senators’ job to beg for money so they can keep their job. There’s a big call center just off the Capitol grounds, and as soon as the session at the Capitol ends they all walk over to the call center, plop down in their cubicle, and spend the rest of the day calling past and potential donors.
But a principled politician could just choose not to participate, right? Maybe, but even if you could self-fund your own campaigns, you still have to get out and earn for your party. Having the support of your party is contingent on hitting predetermined fundraising metrics based on the population, demographics, and economics of your constituency. If you don’t hit those metrics you might suddenly find that it’s tough to find support for your legislation. It’s the same in either party.
It was one of the most disappointing things I ever learned about how our country works. The corruption isn’t just baked into the system, it’s all but mandatory. And this was like 25 years ago, before Citizens United. I can’t imagine it has gotten any better since then.
I think the most disappointing thing about it is how cheap they all are to buy. You’d expect them to be bribed in the millions, but it’s always a couple of thousand here, a couple of thousand there.
Turns out the most unrealistic thing about Clay Davis from The Wire, is how much he took.
It’s interesting that this shit is how Lyndon Johnson rose to prominence in the Democratic party. As a newly-minted Congressman in the 1940 election cycle, he acted as a conduit for Texas oil money, funneling it to various Congress and Senate races around the country and allowing the Democratic party to retain control of the House and Senate. This earned him the appreciation of Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn and FDR himself.
It also possibly won WWII, given the isolationism of the GOP at the time.
And don’t overpay, a senator costs less than a 2023 Ford F150 economy package.
A Supreme Court justice, on the other hand, costs as much as a luxury motor home.
Exactly as much as a luxury motor home in fact…
deleted by creator
The problem is not being able to diferenciate between disabled people fighting tooth and nail for their rights, and oil companies (as a single example of capitalisms) paying pocket change over cocktails to continue exploiting humanity and destroying the planet.
They are not the same, nor do they deserve the same rights and considerations, yet disabled people are still marginalised and widely discriminated against, while oil companies make record profits, because they’re actively working to convince people like you that they are the same, and do deserve the same consideration, and that if you stop them, you’ll be harming disabled people too. They’re literally concern trolling you while they stomp all over the disabled people you’ve evoked to argue for the capitalists’ rights, as well as billions of others.
deleted by creator
No, clearly not better:
A blanket end to “lobbying” would also lock out citizens groups.
they already are locked out, one group that you clearly don’t care about but I happen to be a member of managing to fight despite the current system to get less than the bare minimum isn’t the proof you think it is of lobbying providing access.
But hey, if arguing in favour of avenues for legal corruption is the hill you want to die on, knock yourself the fuck out, you just don’t get to do that, especially when you try to (badly!) use marginalised people as your debate tool, without getting your bullshit called out… ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Also, fuck off patronising and tone policing me, your first reply was perfectly clear, and me telling you you’re wrong and explaining why isn’t you being persecuted, despite how it might feel to your clearly privileged and wilfully ignorant (of, at the bare minimum, the fight for disability rights, never mind how lobbying actually works and who it actually serves) self.
Yes. And the fact is that if you are trying to systematically tip the scales in favor of moneyed interests versus the general electorate, the lobbyist system looks like a good design choice.
Exactly - it’s there for those already hoarding all the wealth and power to control government, not an actual viable route for “every people” (never mind those who are further marginalised) to have any impact whatsoever on the system those aforementioned people are maintaining.
Politicians shouldn’t have to do any fundraising, or to be allowed to. They should be given a budget by the government.
That could be pretty easily abused, imagine, by straw men siphoning state money without any prospect of winning.
At least in Europe, there are campaign financial limits so things don’t get too out of hand. Corruption, therefore, is done via other means.
Iirc here in Germany you get some funding based on the votes you got last election.
This reduces reliance on outside funding without enabling freeloaders, but sucks for first timers.
Yep, same in the Czech Republic.
You see a lobbyist’s love is very different from that of a square.
This comparison is perfect.
And the most infuriating part is, they really fucking think that their lobbying isn’t blatantly obvious
Let’s see Paul Allen’s bank account.
Is that a rain coat?
Dont forget grey gifts and mutual interests!
And dark money!
If you come to germany you can just do the left picture
Err… Ist this so?
What you mean is probably Something Line this:
- Prepare Special interest
- Provide Consulting or Presentation/Speech opportunity for pay
- Choose your favourable politician for speech
- Profit
That is exactly what i mean. Alternatively you can just offer to pay the Party of the Politician. They will know what you are paying them for. As long as you dont write down what they are getting payed for you’r good.
I have been meaning to do this. I have found that local politicians are exceptionally cheap. Buy a few, and hope that one makes it big.
Even if both were ilegal the democratic political system is still corruptible. Let’s say you want to make a law that’s going to help a lot of people, you still need others from the opposing party to vote for it, (even if there are more than 2 parties) so they also need you to vote in something for them. Even if there is no money in the middle, it is still a corrupt system. Is there a better one today? I don’t think so. But still crap
That’s not corruption. That’s politics.
EDIT: in advance of questions, to explain the difference, what you have described is called political compromise (finding solution that suits both parties). We need MORE of that. Corruption is when politician personally benefit from “selling” their votes.
Believe it or not, you could have more than 2 parties to vote for.
The stated problem is actually more pronounced with a larger number of parties than 2. If the governing party is strong, but doesn’t have majority, and the opposition is split, they usually need to trade favours with the opposition parties to get anything done.
deleted by creator
