Hacker News Reader

Comment by slg | Hacker News Reader

We just learned that it takes only $200m to buy a law in the state of California. The state legislature said these workers are employees. The state judicial system said these workers are employees. These companies wouldn't accept that as an answer so they turned to funding the most expensive proposition battle in history with 90% coming down on the one side. This is also in addition to all sorts of free marketing they did through their apps. And to make matters worse, this proposition is near impossible to amend, reform, or repeal by the state legislature.

View on HN

Curious, would you apply the same logic to the other propositions that received massively disproportionate funding on one side (e.g. Prop 16) but still are failing? Perhaps the voters of California don't 100% share the views of the people elected to represent them. That is the disadvantage of first-past-the-post democracy.

From ballotpedia[1][2]:

Support Prop 16 - $20m

Oppose Prop 16 - $1m

Support Prop 22 - $202m

Oppose Prop 22 - $20m

We are talking about a $19m difference verses $182m. These are in no way similar campaigns.

[1] - https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Pr...

[2] - https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based...

From another angle: the Support Prop 16 people spent 20x their opposition, while the Support Prop 22 people only spent 10x their opposition.

Why didn’t you use the ratios?

Haven’t seen a single unskippable yt ad about prop 16

I think this is an unnecessarily cynical take. Money certainly matters in politics, but it can't buy enough votes to win on its own. The contingent of people who genuinely dislike AB5 was very motivated, and clearly sizeable

I doubt that AB5 was itself the target of much particular care.

Prop 22 is viable this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic and the dire straits so many are in. It's supported by those who need any source of income they can lay claim to, no matter its quality, and by those who know someone like that, and so on. In a year (or a society) in which fewer people were so desperate, I would very much like to believe that this perverted lawbuying would be shot down by a wide margin.

That's an interesting observation. I didn't really think about the fact that a lot of people may be quite desperate and that Uber/Lyft just going away (which they wouldn't dare--but that was the threat) immediately might be quite bad for a lot of people right now.

Wasn’t this put to a vote? Why do you call it “lawbuying”? Because you don’t like the result?

> but it can't buy enough votes to win on its own

Money can't buy love either, but being a billionaire makes that way, way, way easier.

So it can't buy something with 100% guarantee, but if it gets you to 90%, the difference is ... academic.

'Buy a law'? Do you think everyone who voted for it is isn't capable of independent decision-making?

Everyone? Certainly not. Some people? Sure.

Obviously these companies agree with me too. Why else would they be willing to spend $182m more than the other side in this debate?

media coverage on prop 22 & gig cos has been almost universally against. voters chose to vote the way they did. how is this buying a law? seems like some people call any political outcome they don't like corrupt in some way.

money can buy advertising but to believe it can literally buy votes means you don't believe people are capable of making up their own minds. it's incredibly paternalistic and demeaning.

There's nothing wrong with this. What's a more American way to clarify a disagreement than to put the topic on a ballot and let the voters decide?

If it comes down to which side spends more money, then there's something wrong with it.

California has a long and happy history of badly-conceived but very-well-funded propositions going down in flames. Prop 33 in 2012 comes to mind, losing badly despite $17m for and only $275k against: https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_33,_Automobil...

Noted. However we could remove the question entirely by limiting advertising/funding for propositions. I realize that's a short answer to probably a long question, but I'd like that experiment.

Why should the state legislature get to override a referendum? I am not really fans of them for decision making, but I don't see why it is less valid than electing representatives and having them vote on it.

I didn't see any ads (I mean it, I'm very wel insulated from ads in general) but I voted for it.

I did that because the uber drivers I've driven with unanimously wanted the status quo.

AB5 was a shit law that should never have passed and destroyed independent contracting in California. I’m only annoyed that this ballot measure only affects certain gig workers instead of fixing it for the rest of us.

So I wouldn’t read too much into this bill passing.

That explains why when Bloomberg spent like a $1B to become the Democratic nominee he was successful.

Oh wait he wasn’t.

Money has an influence, but saying a vote is “bought” is just sour grapes.

You just said yourself money has an influence. That means it buys votes. That's facts, not sour grapes.

>We just learned that it takes only $200m to buy a law in the state of California.

Incredibly cynical and reductive. I cast my vote on prop 22 based on my personal beliefs about where the government should sit in a relationship between two consenting parties. I haven't used a ride share app in about 2 years. It has nothing to do with the money spent on the campaign, or my loyalty to any company, or marketing through an app.

Despite what people on the internet like to think, people actually have beliefs that aren't based on cynical, simplistic, one dimensional worldviews. People who've never used a rideshare app might object to the government demanding companies solve a problem few people had. Especially in California, where the State is extremely paternalistic and overbearing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com