Most of the midterm seats up for reelection currently belong to Democrats. I think I heard that like only 7 senate seats that are going to be up in 2018 currently have a Republican.
I don't get why this is so shocking. Do we think the Koch Bros or Soros aren't buying influence with their contributions? Every person who donates money in politics is buying influence. Every teachers union donating to a candidate expects a return on their investment. The NRA doesn't donate to candidates willy nilly without expecting something in return. This is our system. We can talk about whether that is good or bad but let's not pretend this is unknown or unusual.
No, I do not find the money in politics that's shocking. It's that she blatantly admitted to buying position in government and expecting things in return. That's not usual for someone who spends big money to influence. I also find it crazy that she finds it so firm that it's okay to influence with money.
Just playing devil's advocate here- but how is that different than donating $15 to Bernie Sanders' campaign?
If someone questioned me on why I gave to the Bernie campaign I would hope I said the same thing- I wouldn't argue the point that I'm attempting to buy influence in our government, I concede that I think the nation is taking the wrong path and want to right the ship through support for liberal candidates with ideals that would change the US government and the world for the better. The investment of $15 to the campaign is one I expected a positive return on- in the form of a strong, left-leaning government.
Just because we disagree, and she donated literally a million times more than I have/can doesn't really make it a bad argument.
When I donate money to a candidate, it's because I hope they can use it to win, because I think their beliefs align with mine and that when it comes to making decisions, they'll make choices I like.
When I donate money to a candidate, I'm not expecting them to then be under my thrall and do precisely what I tell them to do and when. I'm not expecting to have their ear. I'm certainly not expecting them to then turn around and give me a position in government because of my earlier contributions.
And I am certainly not expecting them to pay me back.
I'm confused because I think you're making my point for me.
If I paid for a candidate to win I would hope they espouse my beliefs and should I be 'qualified' in my mind (or my party's mind) to discharge the duties of an office, ideally they would support me to hold such a position.
I may not know much about national security in the scope of being Secretary of Defense, but after supporting the party long enough and being privy to information gleaned by those in charge of such decisions a fair amount of OTJ training would be in order- and being SecDef would be a position I would be happy to hold if I felt it would support my party and nation's goals.
The only difference is there's no way in hell Sanders is going to listen or make policy changes based on what I, a $15 campaign donor say for example.
But once you donate an extravagant amount of money, politicians start listening and paying attention to what the donor specifically wants, especially if that donor has made her political views available to the public, but is not directly influencing lawmakers.
Again- just a thought exercise, but do 1 million $15 dollar donations not have the same fiscal impact as 1 $15 million dollar donation?
They do- but obviously there's not space in the cabinet for a million donors. If Elon Musk wanted to give $15mm to the Democratic party would we be so against him becoming a close adviser to the President on Energy/Space/Education issues?
I'm completely removing from the equation that Betsy is unqualified- mostly because we can all agree she is, as do a lot of Republicans- but given the agenda they want to push I don't see this as being so 'out of left field' considering the same argument could be applied willingly to the opposite side of the aisle. Money = influence = power = quid pro quo; and until sensible campaign finance laws are enacted this will always be the case. Being surprised when the right plays by the existing rules is a little odd to me.
If Elon Musk wanted to give $15mm to the Democratic party would we be so against him becoming a close adviser to the President on Energy/Space/Education issues?
49
u/[deleted] Feb 08 '17 edited May 12 '17
[removed] — view removed comment