Hacker News Reader

Comment by dragonbonheur | Hacker News Reader

John Culberson receives money from Boeing, Lockheed Martin, SpaceX, Orbital ATK and Northrop Grumman.

Whenever a US politician makes a statement, I look Why they made that statement - and the why is often that they get paid in campaign contributions to say precisely what their donors want them to say. Whether it's about foreign policy or anything else, it's easy to go on opensecrets.org and see who their donors are and thus why they made a statement.

Nothing is done in America's interests - it's done to stuff pockets full of cash and contracts. http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=201...

View on HN

> Whenever a US politician makes a statement, I look Why they made that statement - and the why is often that they get paid in campaign contributions to say precisely what their donors want them to say.

I think this is a gross simplification - companies find politicians that are sympathetic to their positions to begin with, and then help finance those campaigns. I don't know about John Culberson specifically, but I'm quite sure that if you spoke to him or to numerous other politicians receiving the contributions you are complaining about - they would staunchly defend the positions they have adapted as being independent of donations. It's really not black and white.

But isn't that the same thing? Left just to the votes of the people and equal opportunity campaign investments, those candidates and those policies wouldn't get the power. You are describing that, instead, candidates are essentially put in power by companies, who are therefore still in effect buying policy. Then, the representatives are no longer representing the people but the money.

> But isn't that the same thing?

Sure, it is the same thing in practice - but it's not what OP is suggesting:

>> Who would want to admit they are guilty of being essentially corrupt?Of cooooourse they would find excuses. But it's incredibly naïve to say US politicians aren't influenced by money. They are all bought.

> Then, the representatives are no longer representing the people but the money.

The representatives are probably accurately representing the balance of power in US society, which is weighted towards economic/financial interests.

> The representatives are probably accurately representing the balance of power in US society, which is weighted towards economic/financial interests.

Obviously you are assuming that I'm pulling my statements out of thin air (or some other place where the sun don't shine :D ).

Here's a paper from Princeton University that essentially says that public opinion as almost ZERO effect on US policy:

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...

Oh. If there's a paper, that settles it.

If they have almost no effect than they have almost no power - isn't that tautological?

Also it should be noted the paper contrasts public opinion to 'organized interest groups':

> Our third and fourth theoretical traditions posit that public policy generally reflects the outcome of struggle among organized interest groups and business firms.

But in a number of cases organized interest groups are representative of a significant sector of public opinion (the NRA being one such example, or the ACLU is another).

Not having read the paper, I'd bet it has something to do with the fact that most American voters don't vote for any of the issues that concern them. Instead they just vote for the same party they've always voted for or the one their friends vote for. If most people consistently disregard their own interests when voting, they're bound to get something they don't want.

Even those people who aren't so consistent in their voting just vote for whoever the advertising tells them to, which favors the most well funded and thus most corrupt candidates.

Who would want to admit they are guilty of being essentially corrupt?Of cooooourse they would find excuses. But it's incredibly naïve to say US politicians aren't influenced by money. They are all bought.

Do you, in all honesty, think that public schools getting closed, Wall Street getting bailed out instead of jailed for ruining an entire economy, medication being kept expensive, social security getting cut, pay day lenders getting more influence, having the shittiest labor laws in the world, or even Tesla being prevented from selling cars on the web has nothing to do with corrupt US politics?

In all honesty, sometimes I think that Americans DESERVE to be in all the troubles they are in today - they REFUSE to see the truths that are in plain sight. Americans, despite being on the fast track to hitting an economic and societal brick wall will always find excuses to defend the elite who are the obvious and very overt source of their troubles.

I'm still trying to figure out how you got to "America deserves to suffer..." from an article about nasa missions to Europa...

I suppose that is an inescapable fact of american politics and free markets in general- everything has a price and usually it is such someone makes a profit.

The fact that Boeing et all wants to sell more rockets does not make researching europa any less relevant, IMO.

It's not as if this congressman is being sold as a champion of human wisdom. Career politicians have other value and should not be judged as philosophers.

It would be a gross mistake to think of America as a free market. Zoning laws, for example were established to prevent immigrants and other less privileged people from acquiring property in better neighborhoods. There's a reason why rooms in a house have to be of a certain size and why some people can't plant vegetables in their own front yards - it's not for safety and it's not for beauty, it's to maintain an elite.

http://www.asu.edu/courses/aph294/total-readings/silver%20--...

Wow, ya just can't please some people can ya.

Rather than get upset about how corrupt politics can be (and that's putting it mildly), what you're supposed to do is root for the version of corruption that appeals to your tastes.

Could you expand on your idea for those who are not bright enough to connect all the dots?

I can hardly believe Lockheed with Boeing investing into research over life in space research.

these companies make money when nasa sends stuff into space. If more stuff goes into space, they make more money. (the money comes out of the government's pocket in this case)

I'm not sure why this is a big deal especially when it has such scientistific value

The are two different models for judging someone's actions. Intent and outcome. OP is judging that his intent is bad even if the outcome is good - sometimes that is important to remember.

To me, it's an issue of political deception. Corruption is one of the prime factors in political decay, and history shows that there's nothing good about political decay.

In the US, people are becoming increasingly tolerant of corruption. These days it more often invokes funny euphemisms than action. Politicians have innate incentive to fall into corruption, and it's expected that some of them do from time to time. But, it's the people's job to keep them in check.

If this country values funding science, then it should let the scientists determine where and how the money should be spent, not politicians, not lobbies.

I'm as cynical as anyone. My heart is blacker than your soul could dream of.

But I think it's quite naive to look at campaign contributions as a dominant factor in the corruption of American society. It's a tempting scenario, and the numbers are visible, so it's easy to think they're important.

But reality is far more complex. And less conspiratorical.

Nothing is done in America's interests

"America" doesn't have interests, people have interests.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com