What’s the difference between Susan Collins’ complaint of crowd-funded bribery and this
, except the number of people funding the bribe?
(Yes, that’s recently indicted Rep. Chris Collins, no relation)https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/chris-collins-donors-trump-tax-plan-bill-2017-11 …
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It's not bribery. Campaign spending has a marginal impact on political outcomes and doesn't directly benefit the candidate unless they start illegally using it for personal expenses. Bribery, money that goes to them not their campaign, directly benefits them and should be illegal
-
It’s legal, while bribery is not. That’s why I wrote “arguably a kind of bribery.” Philosophically, money to a candidate and money to a campaign aren’t much different. Candidates want both, and change behavior to get it.
-
That's not actually been proven, in fact most the literature analyzing money on politics suggests politicians probably don't change their behavior over contributions and that the vast majority of lobbying happens through other means.https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/0-387-28038-3_8 …
-
I mean “behavior” broadly, including who they’ll meet with or take a call from.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
If money is speech, and speech is free, isn’t bribery legal?
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I've been thinking a lot about this in the context of the Steyers and Kochs of the world withholding donations until they get a preferred position on a specific policy. Also an issue of overrepresention (I am not suggesting drastic measures or anything, just noting it)
-
I’m also just noting it. Philosophically distinguishing that sort of donation promise/threat from bribery/extortion isn’t easy. BTW, clearest example I know of with a policy-donation quid-pro-quo is Sheldon Adelson.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
your argument is specious. It implies that every considered donation to one candidate is a potential bribe to the opponent?
-
I see a difference between a general donation to a candidate and a threatened/promised donation directly aimed at convincing an office-holder to vote a certain way on a specific thing.
-
but we mostly donate to incumbents exactly _because_ of how they voted. The withholding of donations for 'bad' votes is implicit.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Hmm, influence funding supported by many smaller donors instead of by one or several larger donors. The concept almost sounds - what’s that archaic word - democratic?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It seems like a bribe would be offering HER the money.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Nope, it’s funding free speech, as our Supreme Court has ruled in CitizensUnited. Expect more decisions favoring keeping big money in politics if Kavanaugh is on the Court.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It’s not like she has any integrity
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Bribery doesn't work like this. They will fund her OPPONENT. She gets nothing either way, except the PROMISE that if she votes for Kavanaugh, someone who opposes her will get vigorous support to unseat her. More of a threat, really.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
And btw, isn’t this what the NRA does as a threat to every Republican ???
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I don't like this 'bad opinion tuesday' thing you're trying out
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Isn’t that all fundraising?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
