I've always been confused about stories like this. My understanding is that companies cannot give directly to campaigns. So, can someone please ELI5 the exact mechanism by which influence is exerted in these cases? For example, if we're talking about employees of the companies giving to campaigns, they're capped at a small number of thousands of dollars per person, and it seems unlikely that a member of congress would look at the long list of donations and (consciously or subconciously) favor the company that they work for.
>Below you will find contributions to individual members of Congress, and those members’ leadership PACs, from 1989 to the present day. This money came from the telecommunication industry’s own PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families.
Their are 435 positions open in the house. Picking one side and hand them each 10,000$ adds up to 4.3 million per election. If say 5 companies did this it's 21 million every 2 years and 100+ million over a decade. Though you can save money by skipping a few races.
If you want more focus per race you can also donate to PAC's who can then spend unlimited money.
Who says you have to pick a side if your specific issue isn't a national wedge issue?
Give $10k to both major party candidates right after their primary, and you will have someone who will take your calls regardless of the outcome of the election. And the loser may still get hired into an appointed position somewhere.
Over a decade, you have 2.5 presidential races, 166.7 senate races, and 2175 house races, so one company could give almost $47M to candidates directly during that time.
Money is a pretty good predictor of who will win elections. The idea is that Congress is constantly seeking re-election. And because campaigning is so expensive (TV ads, signage, events, staff etc...). You gain influence by either changing the laws, or changing the congressional representative. You do this by donating to those candidates that will favor the ISP providers cause. And because money has such a large impact on who wins elections, by donating more to ISP sympathizers, you gain influence.
Its not that the congress members are looking at who specifically donated. Rather its the other way around. ISP companies pick a pony and bet on their horse.
That makes sense, but it is certainly the opposite of the narrative that is advanced in pieces like this: that the compliance of a given representative is purchased with dollars. But I guess what you're saying is that the compliance of the congress as a whole is what matters.
As well, people tend not to donate to people who they predict will lose. Like how many people are going to donate to a Republican running for Senate in CA?
Given the security of the seat, how many people are going to donate to a Democrat other than the incumbent in CA?
They're almost always misrepresented. Most of the money comes from individual employees making independent choices to support a candidate, which is just absurd to count them as part of a bribery or coordinated influence scheme.
Cite any source that indicates most of the money comes from individual employees making independent choices to support. I disagree with your claim.
EDIT: It seems like some companies actually incentivize employees to give to certain campaigns, by providing perks to those who give. It sounds more like coercion than an independent choice. It would appear to put employees in a difficult situation to say no to your employer don't you think?
>METHODOLOGY: The numbers on this page are based on contributions from donors (individuals as well as corporations and unions that give directly from their treasuries) to outside groups and from PACs (including super PACs) and individuals giving more than $200 to candidates and party committees. In many cases, the organizations themselves did not donate; rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
Basically any conclusions drawn from this data are completely useless as presented. Yet, its cited as clear evidence of corruption.
Each of Facebook, Google, Apple etc could single handedly write a billion dollar checks and put their money where their pro NN mouths are. They did not. NN is just a popular value signaling for FB, Google, Apple, etc. Nothing more.
But they've discovered its cheaper to get their 'users' to do their work for them.
"What do you mean zero cost?! You're telling me the users are going to simply give us this data themselves?"
-Overheard in a VC meeting two decades ago
15 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 38.3 ms ] threadWhat are we really talking about here?
>Below you will find contributions to individual members of Congress, and those members’ leadership PACs, from 1989 to the present day. This money came from the telecommunication industry’s own PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families.
If you want more focus per race you can also donate to PAC's who can then spend unlimited money.
Give $10k to both major party candidates right after their primary, and you will have someone who will take your calls regardless of the outcome of the election. And the loser may still get hired into an appointed position somewhere.
Over a decade, you have 2.5 presidential races, 166.7 senate races, and 2175 house races, so one company could give almost $47M to candidates directly during that time.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00248716&...
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D00000007...
Etc.
Its not that the congress members are looking at who specifically donated. Rather its the other way around. ISP companies pick a pony and bet on their horse.
Money wins elections: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/money-pretty-good-pred...
As well, people tend not to donate to people who they predict will lose. Like how many people are going to donate to a Republican running for Senate in CA?
Given the security of the seat, how many people are going to donate to a Democrat other than the incumbent in CA?
EDIT: It seems like some companies actually incentivize employees to give to certain campaigns, by providing perks to those who give. It sounds more like coercion than an independent choice. It would appear to put employees in a difficult situation to say no to your employer don't you think?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-workers-insi...
>METHODOLOGY: The numbers on this page are based on contributions from donors (individuals as well as corporations and unions that give directly from their treasuries) to outside groups and from PACs (including super PACs) and individuals giving more than $200 to candidates and party committees. In many cases, the organizations themselves did not donate; rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
Basically any conclusions drawn from this data are completely useless as presented. Yet, its cited as clear evidence of corruption.
"What do you mean zero cost?! You're telling me the users are going to simply give us this data themselves?" -Overheard in a VC meeting two decades ago