Contributions to Politicians' Funds

Politics & Elections
1

The deals between corporations or other private entities and someone running for president or Congress or a judgeship are obviously handshake-deals.

Does everyone more or less agree that:

  1. The candidate must agree to do something for the corporation or private entity once in power? So we can assume that all candidates who have received funds thus far have made clear promises, no?
  2. If the candidate doesn’t do as promised, they will then form a bad reputation and not receive other funds from other entities in the future? Is that the only main incentive to deliver as promised?

Thanks.

2

Not exactly.

“We don’t buy votes. What we do is we buy a candidate’s stance on an issue.” Allen Pross, executive director, California Medical Association’s PAC (1989).

3

No, this would be literally bribery. An explicit quid pro quo that exchanges campaign contributions for specific official actions is illegal. However, it’s simply common sense that a campaign contribution reflects that the donor agrees with the candidate on various issues, and vice versa. Ted Kennedy didn’t vote to raise the mimimum wage because he received campaign contributions from labor unions. If anything, labor unions donated because he supported the minimum wage.

Since there’s no explicit promise in terms of a quid pro quo, the proposition starts on the wrong foot. But I don’t think even the most jaded political donor ever thinks, “If only we raise enough money for our candidate, he will be a puppet under our control!” I think donors generally believe that contributions buy access for them to make their case on an issue, but not a guarantee that a candidate will do what they tell them to.

Think about it this way: a candidate probably gets thousands of contributions in any particular election. The candidate can’t possibly make promises to support every donor, even the big dollar ones. A Democrat from Michigan may get a donation from a car company and an environmental organization: the candidate can’t simultaneously support and oppose raising fuel efficiency standards on the basis of those two contributions.

4

But, the question doesn’t ask about the law, but about what actually happens, as far as one can speculate… They call this crony capitalism, I believe… and is so prevalent that it is one of the policies (to prevent it to a great extent where possible) of one major candidates still in the race this year. No doubt there are encrypted talks about exchanges of money for political action all the time.

Good example of unfunded ‘pure’ politics.

A bit of a straw-man argument there, don’t you think? They aren’t going to expect puppets, but big name, established and well-reputable corporations wouldn’t donate hundreds of thousands or even millions if there wasn’t at least a pretty clear road to obtaining a return on those investments. Is it too far fetched to imagine that the people in charge of those donations - most likely people with an already stunning track record of success - could easily be passed up for promotions if they made bad investments on the company’s behalf on that scale?

Yes, there must be many paths which a candidate must choose between from time to time, but there are plenty of political points of view which are compatible with one another.

5

“No doubt?” Well, I’m saying that you haven’t offered the slightest bit of evidence for your case, so yes, there is doubt. There have been instances where the quid pro quo has been promised, and people went to jail – Bob Ney, for just one example. But why don’t you offer some evidence that it happens “all the time,” because I am totally certain that the vast majority of people in Washington are smarter than to commit Federal crimes on a massive and ongoing basis as simply a matter of practice.

You clearly do not understand the motivations of donors. Why don’t you try going to some local politician and offering him a check for the maximum legal contribution you can make, so long as he votes a certain way on a bill? Surely your town councilman or whatever would agree, right?

According to this article, the defense industry has given Hillary about $450,000, and they’ve given Sanders $310,000. What do you think the defense industry has extracted from Sanders as a result of those donations? Link.

6

Here’s my problem with those kinds of figures. The unstated but actual definition is ‘donations by employees of the defense industry.’ I’d like to know what portion of those donations were made by individuals who simply want to support the campaign to which they donate, as opposed to buying goodwill for the industry or company.

7

Do you know why gangs are successful at taking over neighborhoods and armies are successful at taking over neighboring countries? A large part of it is avoiding detection. Secret codes on a message passed around a jailhouse, bug sweepers, encryption methods… and the best criminals can afford all the devices the criminal-catchers can. Again, why do you think crony capitalism is such a HUGE deal these days? Many people are voting for Sanders because he fights crony capitalists on wall street, Cruz because he is so outspoken about crony capitalism in general, and Trump because he is nearly immune to the bribes of crony capitalists… 3 out of the 4 main contenders in the race today are there because Americans in general have woken up to the scam that has been going on for ages. And you’re going to stand there and tell me I have no argument without some evidence for you? I’ve lived, I’ve read… don’t expect everything you learn in life to be plainly observable and out in the open.

A minor comment… A lot of donors already know how a given politician will vote… they just want to ensure their voter gets elected.

8

Ok, you’ve lived, you’ve read. I’ve been to many fundraisers for political candidates. I have close friends whose jobs involve corporate contributions. How is it that you think that your “living and reading” gives you more insight on this issue than what I have?

9

You’ve been here almost 2 years and you’re asking that question? If you really have a problem with that, then this MB is not for you.

10

Nah, the issue is that for many things one can’t provide enough evidence in a single post or even thread. It’s the line where when you cross it (call it the “book line” for lack of a better term atm) you either need to start either referencing books or writing your own and returning with a link for that…

As an aside, it would be interesting to find the statistics on how often that happens on straightdope (or any other forum-site)… that is, how often a thread crosses the “book line”.

Still, I could reference books and many people will still never be satisfied, because for many things, evidence can’t really be collected…

11

I’m not clear if you’re saying that there is no evidence for your claims, or that there’s so much evidence that you can’t possibly provide any of it.

12

The lobbyists I’ve worked with (admittedly, not a huge sample, but they are professionals who deal with politicans every day) insist that big political contributions buy** access** – instead of getting five minutes to meet with an aide and hand over a position paper, you might get thirty minutes to actually go over the paper with the aide. If you’re important enough, you might get to see the legislator directly, instead of having to go through the aides. The gold standard is when the legislator actually solicits the donor’s opinion.

This can get pretty close to voting for dollars, but there’s a line somewhere, and both the legislators and lobbyists seem to know exactly where it is.

13

When asked why he has donated money to Democrats in the past, Trump responded (bolding mine):

*“Look,” he said last Wednesday, “politicians are all talk, they’re no action. They don’t do the job, they don’t know what they’re doing. I know them better than anybody, Howie. I deal with all of them. And, you know, I make contributions to many of them. They’re friends, they’re this. It’s smart. It’s called being an intelligent person and a great business person.

“But the truth is that, you have to be able to get along with—if you’re gonna be a business person, even in the United States, you wanna get along with all sides because you’re gonna need things from everybody. And you wanna get along with all sides, it’s very important.” *

Sure seems like he expected something in return for his political speech in the form of money.

14

Anyone who makes campaign contributions expects some benefit to come of them. But there are many different forms this expectation can take.

Form 1: Donor goes to candidate and says “I’d like you to vote yes on Bill XYZ and similar bills. If you do so, I will give you money.” This is bribery, and is illegal.

Form 2: Donor finds candidates who already support XYZ and similar bills, for whatever reason. Donor gives money with no strings attached to those campaigns, but does not give money to campaigns of opposing candidates. Donor hopes that the money will enable those candidates to win, and so when XYZ comes up for a vote, it’ll get a majority. Meanwhile, opponents of XYZ are doing the same thing with the candidates who already oppose it for their own reasons. This is certainly legal, and if there’s any legitimate purpose served by campaign donations, this is it.

Form 3: Donor finds politicians who are still on the fence about XYZ. Donor gives enough money to the politician to get the politician’s attention. Representatives of the donor then go to lunch with the politician and lay out their arguments for why XYZ is a good idea. Meanwhile donors on the other side do the same thing, with the same politicians. The politician takes both sets of donations, and decides which way to vote. This is legal, and the part about laying out arguments is certainly legitimate and how the system is supposed to work, though it’s perhaps unfortunate that the way to get the politician’s attention in the first place is to give money.

Form 4: Donor goes to politician, and says “We’ve decided to give you money this year. We haven’t yet decided whether to give you money next year. On a completely unrelated note, here’s a list of legislation that we’d like”. This is legal, provided that the donor is careful enough to not make the connection explicit, but it’s still pretty shady, and lots of folks would like to find ways to make it illegal.

And, of course, there are also differences in the sorts of benefits donors expect to receive. Some donors are trying to get effects that they consider to be to their own personal benefit, while others will try to get effects that they consider to be to the benefit of the nation as a whole. And some, of course, will consider something beneficial to both themselves and the nation.

15

Do you really think politicians would completely ignore the voters and just switch sides on any old issue based on who gave a few more dollars? Pick a politician and ask yourself if you see him or her just switching like that. It doesn’t happen.

Donors don’t bribe. Donors support candidates they know already support their issues. They help them get elected so they can do what they said they want to do.

16

Yes on Form 1 and 2.

Form 3 - if the candidate got about the same money from both sides, you can’t say the money influenced the vote much.

Form 4 - a variation on 2 or maybe 3.

17

That’s true some of the time, though often access is just as easy without a donation and the “access” claim is a nice way of raising funds for your PAC by making the money sound important, but not the same as bribery.

18

BTW, when the word “bribe” gets thrown around, remember that this is about donations to a campaign, not to a politician’s pocket. The money doesn’t buy him a yacht, it buys him campaign ads.

19

If it was the same amount of money on both sides, you’re probably right. But it isn’t always the same amount of money. Sometimes, one side of an issue can afford pay-attention-to-me money, and the other side can’t.

And while some of the money offered is campaign funding, not all of it is. Another popular tactic, for instance, is for the lobbying group to give the politician a job after he or she leaves office. Ostensibly, this is because the now-ex-politician has “experience” and “knows how the system works”, and so on, and this will make them an effective lobbyist. In practice, though, such jobs often have almost no duties or responsibilities, and they exist only as a barely-legal way of rewarding the politician for past votes. And once it becomes known that a lobbying firm works this way, they don’t have to say anything about an explicit quid pro quo: It’s all understood.

20

True. At some point, you have to stop and realize that the voters vote, and what they want matters, and no amount of money can change their power to assert that in the next election.

I believe federal ethics rules have that covered, at least in part. Don’t remember the details.