1) Susan Collins is right. Threatening to fund her opponent if she doesn't vote a certain way is arguably a kind of bribery. 2) Is her objection that this money comes from many people, rather than one rich person, corporation, or PAC? Because that's the only difference I can seehttps://twitter.com/burgessev/status/1039633354268835840 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @NGrossman81
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
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @trepur349
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @NGrossman81
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 …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I mean “behavior” broadly, including who they’ll meet with or take a call from.
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.