makingmusic476 said:
But this raises the question of why candidates are so often doing things that are at odds with what is best for their constituents and which only provide a benefit to themselves via the money recieved by lobbying groups. Corn subsidies, military spending, privatized prison system, war on drugs, and so on. SOPA would be on that list if the technology industry hadn't helped raised awareness to the bill via WIkipedia, Google, etc. |
A) Because those are what's bset for their constitutents.
1) The politcians who are pro corn subisdies, 75% of the time are in districts that happen to grow corn.
For example, Obama is a HUGE guy for corn subsidies, because he's from a corn producing state. This helps their individual distrcits and states.
The other 25% come from areas where citizens extremly worried about global warming.
Corn subsidies being used for Ethanol production
2) Military spending is supported by a bunch of people because they have military bases, factories in their communtities, or have the ability to gain those things. Additionally, a LOT of Americans support increased military funding. Most tend to most of the time.
3) Privatised Prison systems. It's cheaper the public prison systems and the only people it might negativly effect are prisoners, people are for this because it means their taxes stay lower.
4) War on drugs. Most people are for the war on drugs. Public opinion has shifted notably in like... the last 3-4 years but not nearly as much as you'dt think.
5) SOPA. See how many pro-sopa people there were on THESE boards, where there shouldn't be any, or people who still insist piracy = stealing etc. Again, most people are for anti-piracy methods, and relativly strict ones. Ironically, if anything the STOP of SOPA would of been a better arguement. since it was an actual case where politicians changed their minds rapidly. Though they really didn't, they just dropped this unpopular bill, and are waiting for another queit bill to pass.
B) Lobbying groups don't give senators and congressmen money. Lobbiests are paid sweet talkers with inside connections that try and explain to congressmen why their ideas are good ones.
For example, say I was Barak Obama's tennis partner. Standard Oil might pay me to talk to Obama about why their new oil subsidy is great, and he'll talk to me because i'm his tennis buddy.
Might that change his opinion? Sure, still it's not through any nefarious means, unless you consider paying someone to make your point for you nefarius. The worst parts outside actual bribery which is illegal, is someimtes they'll make their points at expensive events.
Which, I don't see being a big factor for most congressmen considering what they are paid anyway.
