
How Much Does a Politician Cost? - bainsfather
https://theintercept.com/2017/05/04/how-much-does-a-politician-cost-a-groundbreaking-study-reveals-the-influence-of-money-in-politics/
======
gertef
> While Volcker had used high interest rates to engineer a crushing recession
> at the start of Reagan’s first term, he then allowed the economy to expand
> rapidly just in time to carry Reagan to a landslide reelection in 1984.

Is it really true that one person controls the whole economy?

And if so, why does Glass-Steagall matter one way or the other?

How could Volcker on the one hand crash the economy _himself_ , and then
immediately _un-crash_ it, while on the other hand being the guardian of
Glass-Steagall, supposedly the only defense against... crashing the economy?

This story seems to be more mythmaking than science.

~~~
trendia
Either this author does not understand basic economics or they are
intentionally misrepresenting what Volcker did.

Volcker raised interest rates because of 1) high inflation, 2) tight access to
capital, and 3) weak US dollar. By any measurement, the US was already in a
recession before he even came to office.

What this author implies is exactly the opposite of what happened -- that
rather than __responding __to a recession, he __created __one. And although
high interest rates definitely had negative consequences, continuing with the
previous mometary policies would have been worse.

------
arcanus
> representatives who voted in favor of finance often received
> $200,000-$300,000 from that sector, which raised the odds of switching by
> 25-40 percent.

Quite cheap, given the magnitude of the results.

~~~
maxxxxx
Lobbying has one of the highest ROIs of any activities a company can do. I
have seen statistics where they showed an average ROI of 100x and more.

~~~
jbpetersen
So what's preventing market saturation from everyone lobbying until the ROI
drops to something sane?

~~~
maxxxxx
I was wondering about that too. I think lobbying is only one side of it but
there is also the threat of attacks ads from super PACs. They often don't even
have to spend the money because the threat alone is enough. And that is much
more money.

------
sevensor
Unfortunately, not as much as one would hope. Apparently $1000 is enough to
move the needle for a member of the House.

~~~
gertef
That smells like over-fitting:

>For every $1,000 a representative received from corporations supporting net
neutrality, like Google or Netflix, they were 24 percent more likely to vote
for it. For every $1,000 from companies opposing it, they were 2.6 percent
more likely to vote against.

A 10x differece in magnitude, by directionality?

~~~
squidfood
We also have no notion of correlation/causation here. If a rep has shown
herself previously to support my interests, by speeches, ideas, or whatever,
I'm more likely to donate to her next campaign. The question is: are there
lawmakers who voted one way (or "neutrally"), then changed after the cash came
in?

------
gunnyguy121
It's not like you need to buy everyone in the majority party. Just a few
influential members and the rest will follow

