[boomboomsubban]

It sticks just fine. In this example the Democrats oppose this one issue, but voted to give the ISPs billions in stimulus funding and protected them from lawsuits by passing the privacy killing CISA bill. You don't need to support 100% of their interests to be in their pockets.

[Chathamization]

Though even in the case of CISA, you have far more Republicans than Democrats voting in favor of it and far more Democrats than Republicans voting against it.

[cptskippy]

Republicans are the current majority and politicians vote along party lines. So it seems like it would be easier to sway the majority party and a few of the opposition than targeting each senator individually.

[guelo]

The Republican's anti-regulation ideology is also an anti-consumer-protection ideology. The idea is that if you let companies abuse their customers then other companies will want to get in on it and will eventually magically produce the most optimal efficient outcome for society as a whole. It's basically a religion because it is not backed by any real research or science. It also just so happens to align with the interest of giant corporations.

[webXL]

> The idea is...

I hope this is satirical. One could just as easily state that pro-regulation ideology is anti-competition ideology. The idea is to create a regulatory burden so large that only big companies can afford to comply, or lobby to get favorable regulations. "It's basically a religion... to align with the interest of" politicians and bureaucrats.

[croon]

> The idea is to create a regulatory burden so large that only big companies can afford to comply, or lobby to get favorable regulations. "It's basically a religion... to align with the interest of" politicians and bureaucrats.

Your version breaks because there's no apparent win condition by doing that. The only possible gain politicians and bureaucrats have by bloating the system is continued employment... which is not guaranteed, and does not pay especially well (relative).

They're much better off getting lobbied and doing whatever corporations want, which is screw over your constituents.

[webXL]

What? "only big companies can afford to comply" means that competition is eliminated in exchange for bought politicians. How is that not a win condition?

[DanielBMarkham]

This is an excellent point and needs to be included in every discussion of U.S. politics. If there are only two parties, you give heavily to both. Then you find ways each party can "win" or "lose" while your cause advances. In this fashion each political party can continue its public drama of fighting the other one, all the while your interests advance in various ways -- just not the same way all the time.

[mitchellberry]

Boolean outcomes everytime.