> It cracks me up that people believe that money is the only way to influence legislators.
Not only that, but there's an overemphasis on the idea that donations are an implicit quid pro quo exchange for policy.
Let's say we could somehow ban any kind of "exchange" -- not just donations, but these other soft influence deals where money doesn't change hands directly.
We'd still have a fundamental problem: people who have lots of money can hire other people to represent their interests to congress.
Conversely, how many citizens spend time trying to influence their congressional offices? Not just via vote, not just via the occasional phone call or letter, but by actually meeting with congressional staff.
I don't mean to suggest that at all -- I think there are a variety of things we could try to mitigate some of the problems associated with campaign finance.
What I'm trying to communicate is mostly that when it comes to "buying influence", the problem is a lot deeper than any access/influence purchased via donor-driven fundraising. It's actually inherent in any arrangement where money can be used to hire people to lobby on an employer's behalf. And it's particularly unbalanced when most people don't lobby on a volunteer basis.
Not only that, but there's an overemphasis on the idea that donations are an implicit quid pro quo exchange for policy.
Let's say we could somehow ban any kind of "exchange" -- not just donations, but these other soft influence deals where money doesn't change hands directly.
We'd still have a fundamental problem: people who have lots of money can hire other people to represent their interests to congress.
Conversely, how many citizens spend time trying to influence their congressional offices? Not just via vote, not just via the occasional phone call or letter, but by actually meeting with congressional staff.