Of course not. Which is why my $20 donation to a candidate is not a bribe. No candidate is going to be swayed by my $20.
My $5,000,000 donation to your super PAC though. Well, that might just buy me some legislation.
But it’s not MY super PAC.
Super PACs aren’t controlled by the candidates. A donation to a super PAC that supports a candidate isn’t the same as a donation to a candidate.
(At least they aren’t supposed to be - the enforcement of the law is weak, and that’s the real solution - enforcing it).
But here’s a new question - what if someone on the other side of the issue donated even more to “my” super PAC? Would I change my mind? Would that even happen?
For your claim to work, you’d have to have competing interests both donating to the same candidate in an effort to outbid each other. That doesn’t happen. Each side donates to the candidate they think will support them already, with the hopes that their candidate will get elected and have the power to do what they promise.
possibly provide… not enough time…
great info thanks
exactly - he’s telling it as it is out in the open.
[quote=“Chronos, post:14, topic:751454”]
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 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.
[QUOTE]
Thanks for writing. I think you ought to take note of the similarity between these two forms.
for some people, they have a price. for others, they adhere to principal. You hope that they are of the latter kind.
It doesn’t work like that though.
Name a single politician who changed their position on a major issue after an interest on the other side made more donations to him/her than he had previously recieved from the other side.
And it’s not necessarily about “principle.” It’s about the voters. The voters matter much more than money. If the voters aren’t happy, money won’t help.
What, logic doesn’t work that way? Yes it does.
Something like that you might find reading some “My life as a lobbyist” book.
The thing you’re describing doesn’t happen. It’s not like the politician waits until there are two parties with donations have opposing views… and THEEEEN he may hear them…
I didn’t say it happens. I responded to a hypothetical.
But you’re wrong. The donation-listen cycle goes on and on. Donations happen, and meetings happen, and there isn’t a strict timetable where one happens first. Doesn’t matter anyway - if you think donations bring meetings, the expectation of a donation works the same way.
So post an example from one of those books.
It would have to happen that way if the logic in your argument was valid.
Feel free to do the same
No it wouldn’t. A hypothetical is a hypothetical. The logic based on it is independent of whether it actually happens.
I’m not the one making a claim.
You want me to post an example of something NOT happening?
Clarence, you started off the thread asking if everyone agrees that politicians routinely adhere to a quid pro quo (in clear violation of Federal law, mind you) in order to get campaign contributions.
The answer is clearly no, that not everyone believes that. So you respond that you’ve done a lot of reading, but there isn’t sufficient time for you to provide any evidence for your basic claim, which amounts to virtually every politician conducting massive violations of 18 USC 201 on an ongoing and pervasive basis.
How, exactly, do you want this debate to proceed? If you can’t back up your wild assertions at all, it’s the equivalent of someone insisting that they have seen space aliens so they are real, which devolves into “Yes, I did!” and “Where’s the proof?” Is that what you want this thread to be – just a schoolyard argument?
The alternative is that you can back up what you are claiming.
Defense is a unionized industry, is it not? That might explain most of his contributions. From your cite:
Two-thirds of Sanders’ total and 95 percent of his individual contributions from employees of defense contractors came in amounts of $250 or less