Hang on; I’m not clear on this. First you say she is “introducing” something. Then you say “not that it wasn’t there already”.
So is she introducing it or not? 
Two flaws that jumped out at me.
First, it’s not a given that a candidate that gets a lot of corporate money will win an election. Freakonomics did a pretty famous piece about the role of money in elections several years back, and this FiveThirtyEight article says something similar. To summarize:
- Spending and winning often go hand in hand, but that’s a correlation and not a causation, since popular candidates tend to get more donations anyway.
- The stuff that campaigns spend money on isn’t all that effective
Second, even if getting a lot of PAC money was a huge advantage, at the end of the day the voters have the final say. What’s depressing isn’t that someone can get a lot of money from special interests that want to, say, drill for oil in the ANWR, it’s that thousands of regular voters will scream “drill baby drill” at political rallies. Whatever the cause and effect there, it doesn’t matter if a legislator wants to subvert the will of the people if the will of the people has already been subverted by Fox News.
Fair enough. If a sufficient enough portion of the federal government decides to conspire to do bad things legally, they’ll be able to do bad things legally. Is that her point?
It’s good thing then that she didn’t at all make the argument that having lots of corporate money will win an election, isn’t it?
Ddamn; it’s prolly also a good thing that she didn’t at all make an argument that voters don’t have the final say, right?
So no flaws at all in what she was saying, right?
Who is terrified of her? On the right, they call her the gift that keeps on giving. They think she’s hilarious, not scary. Her ‘Green New Deal’ is the funniest thing to come out of Washington since Al Franken.
Ok if that’s what you think lol
She says, “So I use my special interest, dark money funded campaign to pay off folks that I need to pay off and get elected. So now I’m elected, now I’m in.”
I’m not saying she’s ignorant of the role of voters, but I think she’s putting too much emphasis on Citizens United and corporate money.
Ultimately her argument boils down to, “A bad person can get elected, write legislation that only benefits specific corporate interests, make themselves rich in the process, and then bail.” Which is undeniably true, that can happen. And it probably does, but there’s a built in way to address that situation, which is we stop voting for people who write legislation that only benefits specific corporate interests and make themselves rich in the process. The problem is that even after we find out that this exactly what someone’s doing, we tend to reelect them. Why is that? Is corporate money just that powerful?
Corporate money and right wing propaganda is enough yes.
I meeeaaaaan, as a practical matter these are rules, not like… physical laws of the universe. As far as I know nobody has ever gotten arrested or sent to the firing squads for writing unconstitutional legislation, and if you can get enough people on board to sign your pork barrel or (legally) PAC-bribed legislation, and get it not vetoed you have plenty of time to reap the benefits before the SCOTUS unwinds it. Hell, just hide it in a rider on some otherwise uncontroversial or unreadable omnibus piece of legislation that passes through a committee you’re on, happens all the time.
Of course, you could get sanctioned by your party, you could not get re elected due to it, we could overthrow congress in a bloody revolution, but if you’re subtle enough about it then even “constitutionality” isn’t per se a limit of Congress’ power. Save the veto, constitutional limits are largely debate tools and long-term (usually at least 5+ year lag time) limits. Plenty of time to reap the benefits. Let’s not forget the large, large number of things Congress wasn’t thought to be allowed to do that they passed laws about anyway, only to be justified later when the SCOTUS ruled it was technically allowed under a clause (usually interstate commerce).
Most of the things you can do aren’t even remotely unconstitutional anyway, because they involve either electing to not sign legislation doing certain things (e.g. monopoly busting), or repealing existing legislation. And most of these bills aren’t big ordeals like the ACA or something, they’re small bits of legislation where if you want to be subtle you can jusify all sorts of reasons you’re against the bill’s wording.
Now of course, this actually almost works as a counter to AOC’s points as well, because people can just ignore or get even more clever about circumventing any laws passed preventing this, but I’d prefer to try.
Dude, it’s a hypothetical. She isn’t making any kind of argument AT ALL there; she’s just setting up the scenario.
Forgive me, but you seem to have completely missed the point she was making, despite the fact that she states it clearly starting at the 4 minute mark.
And I’d say there’s about 5/95 split there in terms of which matters more.
Well that’s one opinion. Sure.
But it’s the question he knows how to answer so he pretends that’s the question she was asking.
Help me out then, what’d I get wrong?
We’ve had bumper-sticker politics at least since Jimmy Carter. What AOC is doing is pulling in a left-populist, anti-corruption direction.
Propaganda doesn’t pay for itself. Who do you think pays for it?
And the corrupt hate it, so they and their media outlets are trying to destroy her. We need to try not to just fall for that.
Special interests, of course. It’s more effective having the people clamoring to enact your agenda than trying to pay off a politician to enact it on the hush hush.
What’s really effective is both working together in concert
Granted. But corporate money typically funds both sides of the election. Maybe it spends more on one side, but either way they can expect to get their ROI. And AOC isn’t talking about this. Or, indeed, the other thing you’re talking about. She’s talking about just raw corruption - the revolving door of Washington and special interest groups, a well-established and well-known problem.
Yes - because The Daily Wire writes an average of slightly more than one article a day about politicians they find “funny”. People like her ideas, she’s phenomenally charismatic, and she’s savvier on social media than basically anyone, up to and including the president. If those on the right aren’t worried about her, they really should be.
Care to elaborate on how this applies to what we’re talking about here? At all?
This comparison is just so bad. So, so, so bad. For shame, man.