|
|
|
|
|
|
by franga2000
2067 days ago
|
|
|
The most shocking thing for me here is the table of donors. In any other part of life, receiving donations from someone with a stake in something will completely invalidate what you say about it.
A judge, even in the lowest of courts, would get immediately replaced if this kind of link was found. My mother in the city council isn't allowed to propose any IT-related project because I work in the field. Even something as simple as an unboxing on YouTube will be often considered as biased and untrustworthy if there was money exchanged, even for creators with a good track record. But a senator - supposedly the highest rank of the legislative branch - can receive 100s of thousands of $ from a handful of companies and then turn around and propose something that directly hands precious federal resources to those exact companies who stand to earn billions from them. How is this even legal, let alone seen as normal?!? |
|
|
When you make a political donation you're required to name your employer. That's intended to prevent companies from directing people how to donate: if the SEC sees a suspicious amount of money going to one candidate, they can investigate. "Suspicious" would be millions, an amount large enough to actually sway a candidate, not a few thousand.
That's the thing here: the table is from 2015 to now, and that's just not a lot of money to a politician running for national office. They need to raise millions to get re-elected.
You can't buy a senator to do the opposite of what you want, not for that kind of money. All you can do is get the senator elected who is already predisposed to think like you.
I do wish OpenSecrets wouldn't summarize by employer this way, since it's misleading. AT&T and Verizon employees gave to Thune because they like Thune. The fact is Thune was always going to win in a walk, and he crushed his opponent by a 2:1 margin. They just like him there. He raised $10 million in that election, of which the tens of thousands donated by employees of one industry just didn't make a differnce.
Thune voted for this because he's pro-business and anti... well, you don't need to hear what I think of Thune. But it's not as if he's doing the opposite of what his constituents want. They're perfectly thrilled that he's doing this, and in two years he's going to crush his opponent again.
I say this not to defend Thune or the system we're in. I'm deeply aggrieved at it. But it's not the outright bribery that OpenSecrets implies that it is. It's ideologues donating to, and voting for, the ideologues who agree with them.