Comment by reitzensteinm | Hacker News Reader

Comment by reitzensteinm | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'd say reelection to the second most powerful office in the country is a pretty compelling personal benefit.

The fine line usually placed in the US between corruption and politics as normal is that of the quid pro quo; it's fine to take money from people who happen to share your beliefs, but if you change your votes because of that money, it's corruption.

Politicans have always hidden behind the plausible deniability this gives. You can always claim that you changed your mind on an issue of your own free will, and the donations came later as an unexpected benefit.

But ultimately, it causes well funded interests to dominate political discussion. The teacher's union is almost uncrossable, but how much funding do homeless lobbies get?

Charitably, this is because of survivorship bias - politicans who don't have platforms that generate revenue die out - senators already literally spend half their time raising money [1]. More likely, everyone in congress and the senate sees the writing on the wall and preemtively switches to the right platforms.

The cracks are starting to show in this veneer of innocence, with Chris Dodd earlier this year directly threatening to withhold donations based on SOPA, unless the Obama administration toes the line [2]. It's so long been an open secret in Washington that it was a small step forward for Dodd to take, but it had the unusual effect of exposing the Washingtonian power games to the rest of the country, so it caused quite a bit stir up.

I'm not taking a side on what happened. I genuinely have no opinion one way or another. But if it were as mtgx suggests to curry favour with the MPAA to mend bridges after SOPA, there is zero lattitude on this. It would be corruption.

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/a-big-moment_b...

[2] http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120120/14472117492/mpaa-d...

Edit: tows->toes. Yes I am an idiot.

> The cracks are starting to show in this veneer of innocence, with Chris Dodd earlier this year directly threatening to withhold donations based on SOPA, unless the Obama administration toes the line [2].

I don't get why this is any more of a problem than money in politics in general. If you give money based on how much you support a politician, and they change their positions, and now you agree less, you don't give them money anymore.

What's the alternative?

"If you've ever given money to a politician, you have to keep doing so even if they change their minds about the issues you care about"?

"Politicians are legally forbidden from changing their mind, even in the face of cogent arguments and massive disagreement from their constituents"?

"Giving money and stopping giving money based on a politician's stances are fine but SSSHHHH don't talk about it!"?

> What's the alternative?

Politicians' campaign spending is strictly limited by law:

http://www.thenation.com/article/how-get-our-democracy-back

Right, "less money in politics" is a partial fix for the problems of money in politics. My point is that railing against what Dodd said is silly. I've no objection to proposals for fixing (or even just improving) the system as a whole.

>unless the Obama administration tows the line [2]. It'

toes.

You toe a line.

You put your toe up to the line and stay within that line.

either that, or you have a rope, or "line", attached to something heavy, such as a barge on a canal, and you have to help "tow the line" to get the cargo moving.

Not in this case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toe_the_line

"the second most powerful office in the country". We are talking about the vice presidency here, correct?

I admit, that was a poor choice of words. How about second most visible, or second most prestigious?

My point was that it's an enviable position, not least of which because it's a great stepping stone to becoming president. Actual political power aside.

That I can agree with.

"My point was that it's an enviable position,"

It's been described by someone who had that position as "not worth a bucket of warm spit".

"not least of which because it's a great stepping stone to becoming president."

This is actually pretty uncommon, in practice.

Anyway, in Biden's specific case, there's no way he'll be President. He probably won't be running for VP again.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com