makingmusic476 said:
I'd be more concerned with what a candidate's donors demand of him post-election than how those funds influence the actual election. Cabinate seats, tax subsidies, and so on. Of course, this problem is compounded post-election through lobbying. And the amount of time candidate's waste pandering to donors in general is also an issue. This article discusses that somewhat: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/27/120827fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all&mobify=0 |
Who cares what a candidates donors demand of him post election? Considering the money doesn't help him win the election why would he listen?
You've got the entire cauation wrong here.
Afterall, to use an example, pro life groups aren't donating money to Barack Obama. Pro life groups could gift Barak Obama 2 trillion dollars. It's not going to change Barak Obaman's stance on abortion. He's going to say thanks! when the election then spend 4 years making their lives hell.
Pro choice groups are donating money to Mitt Romney and Romney's super Pac because Mitt Romney ALREADY holds those values.
That congressmen may vote a way congruent to there donors intrests isn't a sign that they are influenced by their donors, it's a sign that their donors voted for them because they believe in the same policy!
As for the article, I don't see the problem. First off, again it's baesd off of the premise that money actually matters for Obama. (which it doesn't)
and secondly Obama could of spent no time at all with most of those people, and the truth is they still likely would of gave him money, so long as his policy interests are clear and in unison with them.
What this seems like is an article complaining that if you want people who disagree with you on everything to give you money you have to spend 5 minutes making them feel appreciated...
