[indubitable]

Most all US politicians are inherently captured by special interest groups. One of the few things that works as an accurate predictor of who wins an election is money. And that money comes in the form of "donations" which leaves politicians to do the bidding of those that donate to them. They need it to get into office and then literally the first day they get into office they begin fund raising for the next run.

Neither party really wants to do anything except further their own power. Maybe one of the most clear examples of this is the TPP. It was going to be one of the biggest corporate handouts in American history, and it was being spearheaded by a democratic president who ran on a platform of trying to remove k-street influence (special interest/big donors) from politics. And while the democratic party put token opposition up, when it came time to for congress to vote away their right to amendment or debate of the TPP - they lined up and made sure he got the votes. It's all a charade.

Finally, a functional government would actually be dysfunctional. Our entire political system is built on checks and balances that means even a small voice in congress has the ability to stop actions from being carried out. The problem is we don't actually have a dysfunctional government. They are doing exactly what they're intending to do - carry out corporate and special interests with 0 hesitation, and then mostly flub about the rest of the time.

[nl]

Most all US politicians are inherently captured by special interest groups. One of the few things that works as an accurate predictor of who wins an election is money. And that money comes in the form of "donations" which leaves politicians to do the bidding of those that donate to them. They need it to get into office and then literally the first day they get into office they begin fund raising for the next run

Counter example: Trump.

[indubitable]

Right, though I'm not sure what this has to do with our discussion? The issue was on the inherent conflict of interest for individuals who make their way to the top of politics through the system - through the experience that's supposed to be valued. In many ways the product is tainted before it even 'ripens.'

[nl]

Right, though I'm not sure what this has to do with our discussion?

I think your argument is a perfect summary of the conventional progressive view. I'm progressive and very sympathetic to the argument you make.

But I think there's a lot more going on in politics than this neat narrative spells out.

I pulled out the Trump thing, because it's a great example of a person who spent a lot less than his opponents but won anyway.

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/9/10941690/campaign-finance-left (which was written prior to Trump) has a lot more details on this.

To pull a quote: research on lobbying suggests that lobbyists are not the omnipotent power brokers that voters sometimes imagine them to be. Further, it suggests that insofar as they matter, they matter for reasons that are hard to regulate away.

I think campaign finance is important, but more than that I want to see progressive candidates win.

I don't think the nihilist argument that "politics is broken" is correct. Nor do I think there is anything which implies an inherent conflict of interest in politicians. A pro-NRA candidate will be supported by the NRA, and if they win they will listen to people they already know. The same with a pro-environmental issues candidate.

This isn't simply being beholden to special interests - there is a strong interdependence between the group and the candidate and it runs both ways.

[nl]

(Also, someone seems to be coming through and downvoting both our posts days after this dropped off the front page. I've upvoted yours, but just be aware it is happening)