21–30 of 70 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'd really like to hear ideas of how we can stop this racket The simple solution - in the sense that it's an obvious one, and a naive one - is to just forbid campaign contributions altogether.
Then only independently wealthy candidates or publicly funded candidates could run.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.
Just a simple question. Can somebody tell me how this gratifies their intellectual curiosity? It seems to be politics and is certainly not an interesting new phenomenon.
It seems like this whole hubub is about someone stating openly what's a well known open secret in US politics: He who pays the piper calls the tune. I mean, really, EVERYONE knows this. "Why did my industry's trade association spend 1.8 million dollars on various candidates who may be voting on legislation that makes or costs us 10 times that much? Oh, no reason... we just think they are very nice ladies and gentleme…
http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Money-Corrupts-Congress/...
If you want to know what to do, a nice first step would be to buy and read Republic, Lost.
It seems like this whole hubub is about someone stating openly what's a well known open secret in US politics: He who pays the piper calls the tune. I mean, really, EVERYONE knows this. "Why did my industry's trade association spend 1.8 million dollars on various candidates who may be voting on legislation that makes or costs us 10 times that much? Oh, no reason... we just think they are very nice ladies and gentleme…
I'm genuinely conflicted about the Dodd controversy. Like so many other people, I was quick to condemn him for his statement/threat. However, it was comments here on HN that made me question just how different it is from, say, me deciding not to contribute to a politician's campaign because I don't like what he has supported. My final feelings are that there's a sliver of difference because (a) I believe that my acti…
It's perfectly fine ethically and legally to provide financial support to candidates who support causes you believe in.
The problem is when there is an express or implied exchange of official acts for the contribution, as when one says, "Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake,"
That is an exchange of contributions for official acts. That is unethical and illegal.
> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Just a simple question. Can somebody tell me how this gratifies their inte…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then only independently wealthy candidates or publicly funded candidates could run.
Yup, that's why it's naive. One possible patch for this issue is to forbid spending money on elections, but again, that just opens up new cans of worms.
It doesn't matter what laws you try to pass or what government you try to have. The entities who those laws threaten will fight against them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then only independently wealthy candidates or publicly funded candidates could run.
Yup, that's why it's naive. One possible patch for this issue is to forbid spending money on elections, but again, that just opens up new cans of worms.
One way to mitigate that is to ban independent advertising on behalf of candidates (SuperPACs), require all donors to donate into a common pot which candidates may draw equally from, and require all media companies to provide equal time to candidates on their networks.
A downside of this approach is that many insincere candidates may exhaust the common campaign financing pool. Requiring failed candidates to pay back a percentage of their spend may be a way to mitigate that (e.g. a "co-pay").
It seems like this whole hubub is about someone stating openly what's a well known open secret in US politics: He who pays the piper calls the tune. I mean, really, EVERYONE knows this. "Why did my industry's trade association spend 1.8 million dollars on various candidates who may be voting on legislation that makes or costs us 10 times that much? Oh, no reason... we just think they are very nice ladies and gentleme…
Larry Lessig (the same guy who single-handedly designed Creative Commons) has spent the last 4 years investigating how to "stop this racket", and summarizes his thoughts in this book: http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Money-Corrupts-Congress/... If you want to know what to do, a nice first step would be to buy and read Republic, Lost.
It seems like this whole hubub is about someone stating openly what's a well known open secret in US politics: He who pays the piper calls the tune. I mean, really, EVERYONE knows this. "Why did my industry's trade association spend 1.8 million dollars on various candidates who may be voting on legislation that makes or costs us 10 times that much? Oh, no reason... we just think they are very nice ladies and gentleme…
What is the difference between that behavior, and groups of people deciding they don't want to donate to representatives who don't represent them anymore?