Hacker News Reader

Comment by toyg | Hacker News Reader

The problem is not just campaign contributions; it's also the "revolving doors" system, of which Mr. Christopher Dodds is such a shining example. That's extremely difficult to regulate, so the best option is to find some place where ex-political operatives can be "re-purposed" for the tech community.

I'd also be careful not to stir the hornets' nest that is the patents system. Depending on how you do it, you end up on the opposite side of companies like Apple and Microsoft, which you need on board for any push on copyright (easing copyright rules would make it easier for them to keep building tools for creatives; easing the patent system will just make life easier for their competitors). Patents, copyright and trademarks are not as closely intertwined as some people believe, they are actually very different concepts.

View on HN

A friend of mine had a genius idea. We pay everyone in congress like $1mm a year for the rest of their life, but we don't allow them to ever work for money again.

If they want to work, fine, but it's free. I bet they'd spend less time lobbying and more time working on noble pursuits.

That's what generous salaries for elected officials was supposed to accomplish in the first place.

In reality, why would a would-be corrupt politician forgo multiple tens of millions in exchange for only 1 million?

I think that's kind of the point, isn't it? Make elected office unattractive to those motivated by the thought of megabux.

Of course, such lavish pensions would still create gravity for the self-serving types who just don't think as big.

I would normally agree with that. Make it even $5 million per year if needed be. But I have one worry - that they become too disconnected with regular people. Then again, there aren't too many politicians these days who aren't already rich, so maybe that won't change too much.

Because corruption comes in degrees and utility curves shrink. The difference between 1 million and tens of millions is not enough to sway your person of average morality to the Dark Side. But the difference between tens of millions and 170k or however much is a more tempting offer, especially when you live in the unbelievably expensive DC area and also half your peers are filthy rich.

Sure, then Congressmen just get cut in for equity. Or some other crazy loophole that will be left open.

Here's the problem: the Federal government has too much power. So long as it retains that power, people and corporations will figure out a way to influence the people who hold that power, through salaries, bribes, equity, favors, lobbying, or whatever.

The only real solution is to reign in Congress.

We must also reign in the power of the few, because as long as money and power are highly centralized, no matter whose hands its in or what type of oganization it is, they will be, by definition, in power and our society wont be equitable, fair or democratic.

The only thing that will accomplish is to limit the spending for a congressional seat at approximately the cost of a life-time annuity at $1m/year. Basically a lot of people will want to go to congress for that salary, which is more than they can otherwise make. Once in congress, they have no further desire to stay in congress (they get their millions anyway) and so will not care what laws are passed.

> A friend of mine had a genius idea.

Your "genius" friend doesn't know much about the economics of congress.

For example, Nancy Pelosi's net worth while in Congress has been going up by far more than $1M/year.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com