2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Berkut]

Why would conmpanies give money to politicians if they were going to vote in their favor anyway? You think companies just throw money away for no expected return on that investment?

That is just naive.

Of course they expect something back. They expect that politician to represent their interests. This has always happened, and always will happen, but the degree that it influences political choices varies based on the relative necessity of that money, which now has become absolutely essential. You *might* lose an election if you piss off the electorate - you won't even BE in the election if you piss off the donor class.

I am reminded of that quote by Steel Magnate Henry Clay Frick with regards to his contributions to Teddy Roosevelt's campaign:  "We bought the son of a bitch and then he didn't stay bought."

Eventually we will have to change the system but nothing short of a Constitutional amendment will do that at this point. I haven't really heard anybody moving for that.

Of course not, why would they? That is the point. Clinton has no interest in fixing this problem, she has benefited incredibly from it.

Trump doesn't want to fix it either, nor could he if he wanted to.

Sanders probably does want to fix it, and would likely be willing to try to fix it. But he is a freaking socialist, and has all kinds of other baggage.

We need someone like Sanders who isn't from the radical extremes. My hope is that Trump/Sanders might make a actual reform candidate from the center a possibility. It is a slim hope, of course.

[CountDeMoney]

We need someone like Sanders who isn't from the radical extremes.

Sanders wouldn't be Sanders if he weren't from the radical extreme.

[Razgovory]

In retrospect, it worked out much better than planned. Who'd have thought a pariah nation, run by an authoritarian who makes his political opponents disappear, could so easily hijack a great democracy? It didn't take much. A talented nerd can bring down a minnow of a nation. But this level of political crime requires more refined mechanics — you need everyone to play their assigned roles.

You start with a stooge, a fugitive holed up in London, releasing stolen emails on the eve of the Democratic National Convention, in the name of "transparency." Cyberburglars rely on a partner in crime to pick up stolen goods. And WikiLeaks has always been there for Russia, a nation with no transparency.

The emails show office gossip — catty, sometimes crude back-and-forth by party operatives, and a bias for one candidate. Ho-hum. To make the plot work, reporters have to take the bait. On cue, they decry the fact that politics is going on inside a major political party. The horror — Democratic hacks saying nasty things about Senator Bernie Sanders.

Next, lefty extremists have to act like lefty extremists — that is, myopic to the greater good, guided by a Trumpian sense that they alone know how to solve the world's problems, and everyone else is a sellout. Angered at the contents of the cybertheft, they boo any mention of their party's nominee. And told by Senator Sanders, the man who brought them there, that booing is too easy, they boo his call to unite to save their country from a monster.

But Russia still has to seal the deal. Some work remains. If enough angered lefties won't go for the Democratic nominee, a longtime foe of Vladimir Putin, it will be just enough to put a Putin puppet in the White House. And it would also usher in the term that drove the right wing crazy when George H.W. Bush used it — a New World Order.

What's in it for Russia? Well, everything. Territory. Hegemony. Its takeover of the Crimean Peninsula has brought sanctions and condemnation from the West. What stands between Putin and further aggression in, say, the Baltic States, is a NATO pact that has kept Europe safe for nearly 70 years. And if you thought Trump stiffed the poor suckers who signed up for his "university," wait till you see how he treats some of our oldest allies.

Plus, Putin despises Hillary Clinton. Like Trump, his skin is rice-paper-thin, albeit a paler shade of orange; and, like Trump, he never forgets a slight. He still hasn't gotten over Clinton's comment on George W. Bush's infamous look into Putin's soul. As a former K.G.B agent, said Clinton, "he doesn't have a soul."

What's in it for Trump? Help at winning the ultimate throne of his gilded dreams. And maybe some investment money from Russian oligarchs close to Putin, one of many things Trump may be hiding in his tax returns. The two narcissists share a love of torture, authoritarian rule, and women on runways in bathing suits.

But then, a wild card, something unplanned. Putin didn't expect Trump to be so all-in with his collusion. He knows Trump is a fool, world class in only one thing — ignorance. He doesn't need spies for that. He knows Trump is a man who will say anything, and deny in the same breath that he ever said it. The Talented Mr. Trump.

Last November, before a national television audience, Trump said of Putin, "I got to know him very well." And Wednesday, Trump said, "I never met Putin." That was a standard Trump lie, on one end or the other. But even Putin couldn't fathom that Trump really will say anything.

So there was the Republican Party nominee for president inviting an American adversary to wage cyberwar against the country he wants to lead. If that wasn't Trump's shoot-somebody-on-Fifth-Avenue moment, nothing will be. What's more, he was way too obvious about the role of the other pawns in the scheme. "I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press," he said to Mother Russia.

Also, he's getting carried away with his dictator-philia. On Thursday, he said Putin was a better leader than President Obama. D'oh! In public, at least, you're supposed to root for the home team.

Trump misses the old days, back when you could "knock the crap out of" a demonstrator. Yeah, the old days. Back when it was disqualifying for an American politician to flirt with treason.

This all seems too preposterous to be planned. Where are the conspiracy nut jobs when you really need them? Even fiction, Philip Roth's "The Plot Against America," about a fascist-lite president during World War II, does not have this level of absurdity.

But it unfolds, still, if not according to Russia's design, then according to Russia's will. Trump is now a national security risk, actively rooting for a foreign adversary to tamper with an American election. And very soon, he will start receiving classified briefings on that adversary. Ehhhhhcellent!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/29/opinion/the-real-plot-against-america.html?WT.mc_id=2016-AUG-FB-MC8-AUD_DEV-0804-0831&WT.mc_ev=click&ad-keywords=AUDDEVGate&_r=0

[Razgovory]

Why would conmpanies give money to politicians if they were going to vote in their favor anyway? You think companies just throw money away for no expected return on that investment?

That is just naive.

Of course they expect something back. They expect that politician to represent their interests. This has always happened, and always will happen, but the degree that it influences political choices varies based on the relative necessity of that money, which now has become absolutely essential. You *might* lose an election if you piss off the electorate - you won't even BE in the election if you piss off the donor class.

They give to people that support their ideas because they want someone friendly in that seat giving them money insures that.  Having actually worked in campaigns, the candidates come to the donors not the other way around.  You need to understand, this is a tribal thing.  The tribe is called "knowing what you are fucking talking about", and you as you so often point out, don't belong to a tribe.  Otto on the other hand does belong to that tribe.  I suspect Yi does as well.  I remember him doing work for Phil Graham back in the 1990's.

[Martinus]

Why would conmpanies give money to politicians if they were going to vote in their favor anyway? You think companies just throw money away for no expected return on that investment?

That is just naive.

Of course they expect something back. They expect that politician to represent their interests. This has always happened, and always will happen, but the degree that it influences political choices varies based on the relative necessity of that money, which now has become absolutely essential. You *might* lose an election if you piss off the electorate - you won't even BE in the election if you piss off the donor class.

They give to people that support their ideas because they want someone friendly in that seat giving them money insures that.  Having actually worked in campaigns, the candidates come to the donors not the other way around.  You need to understand, this is a tribal thing.  The tribe is called "knowing you are fucking talking about", and you as you so often point out, don't belong to a tribe.  Otto on the other hand does belong to that tribe.  I suspect Yi does as well.  I remember him doing work for Phil Graham back in the 1990's.

If that was the case, corporations wouldn't give money to both sides, as they frequently do. It may not be an explicit quid pro quo for specific bills, but it definitely is made to buy access and allow for lobbying "just in case", not just to "support someone sympathetic to our ideas".

[Sheilbh]

In terms of corruption of the system I would worry far more about Bill and the Clinton Foundation than Hill and her speaking fees etc.

[Valmy]

Of course not, why would they? That is the point. Clinton has no interest in fixing this problem, she has benefited incredibly from it.

This is Leninist type thinking I don't really subscribe to. The fact she may or may have not benefited from something is not proof of her level of interest in fixing it. She has played the game and had some success. But that does not mean she might prefer to play a different game with different rules. But frankly I have not heard her opinion on this one way or the other beyond the fact she voted to reform it when the opportunity presented itself and took big speaking fees when they presented themselves.

Sanders probably does want to fix it, and would likely be willing to try to fix it. But he is a freaking socialist, and has all kinds of other baggage.

Being a Senator, especially one who now has a strong national brand, is a perfectly fine place to lead a charge for electoral reform. In some ways it even has advantages over being President since really Congress and the states are the ones who are supposed to change the Constitution, the President would have to use the bully pulpit. But Sanders now has a pulpit of his own.

My hope is that Trump/Sanders might make a actual reform candidate from the center a possibility. It is a slim hope, of course.

We have already had those have we not?

[Razgovory]

Why would conmpanies give money to politicians if they were going to vote in their favor anyway? You think companies just throw money away for no expected return on that investment?

That is just naive.

Of course they expect something back. They expect that politician to represent their interests. This has always happened, and always will happen, but the degree that it influences political choices varies based on the relative necessity of that money, which now has become absolutely essential. You *might* lose an election if you piss off the electorate - you won't even BE in the election if you piss off the donor class.

They give to people that support their ideas because they want someone friendly in that seat giving them money insures that.  Having actually worked in campaigns, the candidates come to the donors not the other way around.  You need to understand, this is a tribal thing.  The tribe is called "knowing you are fucking talking about", and you as you so often point out, don't belong to a tribe.  Otto on the other hand does belong to that tribe.  I suspect Yi does as well.  I remember him doing work for Phil Graham back in the 1990's.

If that was the case, corporations wouldn't give money to both sides, as they frequently do. It may not be an explicit quid pro quo for specific bills, but it definitely is made to buy access and allow for lobbying "just in case", not just to "support someone sympathetic to our ideas".

Sometimes they give to both sides and sometimes they don't.  Depends on the group.  Can you prove that every special interest group gives to "buy access"?  I doubt you can.  I can easily argue that they have access to politicians anyway.  There are plenty of lobbyists buzzing around government officials, they don't need to "buy access", they already have it.  Berkut (and Ank) has the system backwards: prospective politicians come to special interest groups they already support and ask for money, special interest groups typically don't come to them (there are exceptions of course).  Often they give money to very low level politicians, who have no immediate chance of altering policy for policy one way or another.  It's difficult to see how the National Organization of Women would benefit from giving money to a City Council candidate, yet that is precisely what happened.

[Valmy]

Obviously it is a complicated situation. But even if there was no corruption at all going on I think our elected officials are forced to spend way too much time fund raising and running for office. I think some reforms are needed just to make sure they have time to actually do the jobs they were elected to do.

[DGuller]

There is probably quite a bit of corruption in our system.  But what makes it effective is the far bigger problem in our politics:  the culture war, or probably more accurately culture insurgency.  It's much harder to get away with "bribery is free speech" school of thought if you don't have half the country on board because they're always on board now matter how hard they get fucked by things they support.  Where the rubes see gay marriage, the fat cats see useful idiots that can help them line the pockets even more densely.

[The Minsky Moment]

If that was the case, corporations wouldn't give money to both sides, as they frequently do. It may not be an explicit quid pro quo for specific bills, but it definitely is made to buy access and allow for lobbying "just in case", not just to "support someone sympathetic to our ideas".

And access alone is very valuable, hence the price paid.  If you only hear one side of the story or 85% of what hear is from that side, it will have an impact.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I don't deny there are some individual cases of corruption and graft, but I think extrapolating it to the entire system, frankly ignores a lot of political realities. I can think of a couple issues easy to explore--take coal mining for example. Throughout Southwest Virginia, West Virginia, and  Eastern Kentucky, most of the local politicians and the congressmen from those districts (and the Senators in WV, which is an entire state beholden to coal) receive significant donations from coal companies and are significantly "in bed" with them. So these guys are just bought and paid for by big coal? Well, maybe. But let's also take a step back--if you're running for U.S. Senate in West Virginia, or Congress in Eastern Kentucky, you can either take coal money or not take coal money. That's a choice. What isn't a choice is being anti-coal. You simply won't be elected in any of these places if you're anti-coal, just doesn't happen. So are these guys "bought" by the coal industry, or are they holding the only electable positions in their constituent areas, and taking coal money because it'd be stupid not to take money from companies that support the type of votes they were going to cast anyway because they represent the coalfields?

Why would conmpanies give money to politicians if they were going to vote in their favor anyway? You think companies just throw money away for no expected return on that investment?

That is just naive.

Of course they expect something back. They expect that politician to represent their interests. This has always happened, and always will happen, but the degree that it influences political choices varies based on the relative necessity of that money, which now has become absolutely essential. You *might* lose an election if you piss off the electorate - you won't even BE in the election if you piss off the donor class.

To insure another politician doesn't win? Even in the coalfields lefty green types do run, and get creamed, and likely would've gotten creamed regardless, but big business interests don't mind spending what amounts to them as loose change to make sure of it. I think you actually don't realize how small, relatively, corporate spending is. I think the companies that have historically spent the most on lobbying (and I'm going purely off memory) are GE and Exxon, and they spend a few hundred million over a period of like 4 years. If you look at the size of those companies, that's very, very small to them. They aren't buying anything other than a seat at the table, and using relatively small amounts of money to do so.

The idea that this is "corruption" is strange to me. Our Federal representatives represent hundreds of thousands of people, no one has a problem with citizen groups banding together to collect donations and amplify their access and important to a rep, but somehow a corporation that might employ 20% of the district is evil when it does so.

[OttoVonBismarck]

In terms of corruption of the system I would worry far more about Bill and the Clinton Foundation than Hill and her speaking fees etc.

This conspiracy theory confuses me as well. Exactly why would the Clinton's engage in political corruption to fund a non-profit foundation, whose assets they can't touch for personal purposes?

[Razgovory]

There is probably quite a bit of corruption in our system.  But what makes it effective is the far bigger problem in our politics:  the culture war, or probably more accurately culture insurgency.  It's much harder to get away with "bribery is free speech" school of thought if you don't have half the country on board because they're always on board now matter how hard they get fucked by things they support.  Where the rubes see gay marriage, the fat cats see useful idiots that can help them line the pockets even more densely.

I suspect there is much less actual corruption than most people think.  A very significant part of the population, possibly even the majority, will believe all politicians are corrupt no matter what.  It's a very comforting thought, that 1, you are morally superior to the people elected to office and 2 that the reason government doesn't reflect your views is because nefarious forces prevent it.  Much preferable to the idea that there are significant number who elect representatives who disagree with you, or that the ideas you like don't work.

[DGuller]

The idea that this is "corruption" is strange to me. Our Federal representatives represent hundreds of thousands of people, no one has a problem with citizen groups banding together to collect donations and amplify their access and important to a rep, but somehow a corporation that might employ 20% of the district is evil when it does so.

The idea that a corporation employing 20% of the district is just a large citizen group is what sounds strange to me.