Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
1) Is it? Then it shouldn't be able to spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertising.
(In fact in my opinion, nobody should be able to spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertising)
2) It's a way up the quote tree but I think I mentioned that there only seemed to be one researcher? (which was the last guy)
3) A few things here - quid pro quo does happen, politicians will support ideas that they wouldn't otherwise due to money. We actually had it happen in NZ just recently, a politician (John Banks who is a right scumbag and happily is so mired in scandal right now that it will be a miracle if he survives) was extremely anti-gambling until he happened to get a donation from a casino (which he abused a loophole to claim as an 'anonymous' donation). Now he never says anything against gambling...
The other idea that because the lobby groups somehow 'balance out' it's somehow ok, I disagree with that idea fundamentally. If something is wrong but happens to work that doesn't make it right. In any case I severely doubt that the environmental lobby has as much money as big oil, that the net freedom lobby has as much money as big media or that the health lobby has as much money as big tobacco.
|
1) You've given no actual credible reason as to why however. Additionally, how does this apply to the internet? How do you just stop people from making their own fliers and posting them?
It's a stupid thing to try to prevent because it's literally NOT preventable and just taking aribtrary means to prevent something that doesn't need prevention.
2) Read it again. The very beggining has research as well. Additionally... did you read the studies you linked?
They didn't really take into account causality...(unlike the other studies) and the second one if it was correct if anything makes it sound like a GOOD thing. Since it suggests that it helps challengers win. Which when you have something like a 90% retention rate on a congress pretty much EVERYBODY thinks sucks at it's job... sounds like a good thing.
Though for causality, Frontrunners get more donations. It's not that campaign spending creates votes, it's that votes create campaign spending! Heck, look at the Republican Primaries... campaign contributions tend to lag behind actual poll results. Herman Cain? Broke as a joke, until AFTER he shot up in the polls, then he got a bunch of money... then he nosedived.
These studies don't take into account when and why someone got popular.
3)
A) Are you sure that's the chain of events? Or did he change his point of view, and then get support via casinos. There has been quite a strong world wide "legalize gambling" initative going on ever since the global downturn. Numerous polticians have changed their tune, for example in the US a number of states are suddenly getting casinos that beforehand weren't going to.
B) How do you know that was what did it? What voters care about is by far the biggest "Deformation" of what politicians believe... always has, always will be. Even if the rare cases of quid pro quo, outside the incredibly stupid, it's only going to be about issues people don't care about anyway.
Nah, real quid pro quo ain't got nothing to do with Campaign Contributions. It's way too small a thing to be needed. Nah something like "Amakudari". Life after political office is where Quid Pro Quo works out. Something like Chris Dodd and his sweetheart loans getting preferential treatment and a Dodd Frank act that will make two big too fail even bigger, or Chris Dodd magically getting a job right outta congress as head of the RIAA.
C) Great exception to the rule....
And while there isn't as much money on both sides... there is more then enough. As like IQ, it's not a matter of how much you have, but having enough.
Though actually I would point out, the enviromental lobby probably actually does have more money... depending on the issue. Since a lot of the enviromental lobby includes the oil lobby.
|
