That is why I said it was just an idea without any supporting evidence. It was not an "experiment" but just to generate a discussion. Read the posts more carefully before asking stupid questions.
You were in college?
Do Campaign Finance Reforms Insulate Incumbents from Competition?
- Thread starter Flash
- Start date
That is why I said it was just an idea without any supporting evidence. It was not an "experiment" but just to generate a discussion. Read the posts more carefully before asking stupid questions.
You were in college?
WTF are you talking about? I've proven my point over and over on this thread; you're the one who refuses to engage with it because you have some personal issue with me.
If politicians and candidates didn't have to spend 90% of their time raising money, what would they be doing to attract voters instead?
It's a pretty easy question because the answer is right in the Constitution; represent the people.
And I answered that stupid and dishonest sophist question two different ways:
1. Who is donating to those folks? Are they large donors, or are they small donors? This is the work you refuse to do because you're lazy.
2. If we go with the premise that money buys influence, doesn't that mean our entire campaign system is flawed if candidates have to rely on raising money instead of raising votes by offering policies and plans their constituents want? And doesn't that mean that those with more money will naturally have more influence on the candidate who is looking to raise money???
You whined that it would be TOOO HARDZZZZ to find out what your constituents want...and if you think that, then representative democracy is not the political system for you.
And it is answered very easily by asking, who is donating to them?
You don't want to do that work because doing so would reveal that most -if not all- of the donations those specific folks received were from small donors.
Opensecrets even lists out PAC spending and fundraising for candidates. On AOC's Opensecrets page of donors, that % is literally zero.
So AOC is "bought" by small donors that she engages not at $10,000-a-plate dinners in wine caves, but via her social media platforms. That's how a modern politician reaches their constituency to know what their constituency wants. She also does town halls all the time, is totally willing to sit down for interviews, and most importantly puts in the effort in her actual job duties; meeting with constituents, crafting and voting on legislation, attending committee hearings. Those three things are solely an elected Representative's job as defined by our Constitution.
Notice how "fundraising" isn't included there.
Last edited:
LMAO!
How'd that work out for you?
To generate a discussion by way of an experiment.
So what were the controls?
Admit it...you just made the whole thing up.
LMAO!
How'd that work out for you?
To generate a discussion by way of an experiment.
So what were the controls?
Admit it...you just made the whole thing up.
As usual, personal insults and diversions when you have nothing to support your original claim.
Where does the Constitution say "meeting with constituents, crafting and voting on legislation, attending committee hearings" are the duties of a rep??
So, she wasn't bribed by wealthy donors? That just destroyed your entire argument.
Well, you're the one who took a hard right turn into Unverifiable Anecdote Land.
How does it destroy my argument?
Well, you can just look at her donors on Opensecrets and see for yourself.
But that requires effort, which is something you're just not that into.
But none of this actually answers the non-rhetorical question of; if a candidate or elected representative didn't have to spend 90% of their time raising money, what would they do to attract voters and increase voter turnout?
CONGRESS SPENDS MORE TIME DIALING FOR DOLLARS THAN ON LEGISLATIVE WORK
This past Sunday, April 24th, 2016, 60 Minutes broadcast an exposé unveiling the outrageous phone banking operations of an uncontrollable D.C. political machine. It couldn’t be clearer that Washington is more about making money than it is about effective governing. The American public already has a low opinion of Congress. At last check, they had a 14% approval rating yet 90% of them get re-elected.
During the broadcast, David Jolly, a Republican Congressman from Florida, claims he was told that his responsibility, as a sitting member of Congress, was to raise $18,000 per day. While legislators and staff are prohibited by law from making fundraising calls from their offices, both Republicans and Democrats are free to do so at party owned call centers down the block.
60 Minutes took a hidden camera into the private backrooms of National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) operations. Jolly describes these offices as “sweat shop phone booths that compromise the dignity of the office.” (<---and he's a Teabag Republican Asshole)
https://www.termlimits.com/congress-fundraising-priority/
TIME SUCK: HOW THE FUNDRAISING TREADMILL DIMINISHES EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE
For federal elected officials, one of the causes of the lack of time to craft policy (the job they are elected to do) is caused by political fundraising burdens (the distraction). As one Congressman put it bluntly: "campaign fundraising has become an incredible “time suck” for lawmakers."
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0e14/2cc5f8d29365f0b8534cbecab221d18f6cfd.pdf
AN INSIDE LOOK AT CONGRESSIONAL FUNDRAISING
It also requires a lot of time. Incoming lawmakers are instructed to spend upwards of four hours per day raising money
https://gai.georgetown.edu/an-inside-look-at-congressional-fundraising/
This past Sunday, April 24th, 2016, 60 Minutes broadcast an exposé unveiling the outrageous phone banking operations of an uncontrollable D.C. political machine. It couldn’t be clearer that Washington is more about making money than it is about effective governing. The American public already has a low opinion of Congress. At last check, they had a 14% approval rating yet 90% of them get re-elected.
During the broadcast, David Jolly, a Republican Congressman from Florida, claims he was told that his responsibility, as a sitting member of Congress, was to raise $18,000 per day. While legislators and staff are prohibited by law from making fundraising calls from their offices, both Republicans and Democrats are free to do so at party owned call centers down the block.
60 Minutes took a hidden camera into the private backrooms of National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) operations. Jolly describes these offices as “sweat shop phone booths that compromise the dignity of the office.” (<---and he's a Teabag Republican Asshole)
https://www.termlimits.com/congress-fundraising-priority/
TIME SUCK: HOW THE FUNDRAISING TREADMILL DIMINISHES EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE
For federal elected officials, one of the causes of the lack of time to craft policy (the job they are elected to do) is caused by political fundraising burdens (the distraction). As one Congressman put it bluntly: "campaign fundraising has become an incredible “time suck” for lawmakers."
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0e14/2cc5f8d29365f0b8534cbecab221d18f6cfd.pdf
AN INSIDE LOOK AT CONGRESSIONAL FUNDRAISING
It also requires a lot of time. Incoming lawmakers are instructed to spend upwards of four hours per day raising money
https://gai.georgetown.edu/an-inside-look-at-congressional-fundraising/
An actual study:
Campaign Contributions Influence Public Policy, Finds Study of 50 State Legislatures
What voting studies cannot detect are the important, but less observable, opportunities to shape legislation that occur earlier in the legislative process.
https://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=4060
Paper here: http://www.cfinst.org/pdf/papers/02_Powell_Influence.pdf
It goes on to say:
Early studies focused on the linkage between PAC donations and roll call votes in Congress. Some of these studies found contributions influenced votes, but many others did not. While methodologically it is difficult to estimate the causal influence of donations, the larger problem is that much of the influence of donations is likely to occur earlier in the legislative process, when decisions are made about earmarks and other details of legislation that matter greatly to donors.
That's what they're talking about at their high-dollar fundraisers, Flash. The same ones most of them attend every evening. And we know this to be true because of this:
Campaign Contributions Influence Public Policy, Finds Study of 50 State Legislatures
What voting studies cannot detect are the important, but less observable, opportunities to shape legislation that occur earlier in the legislative process.
https://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=4060
Paper here: http://www.cfinst.org/pdf/papers/02_Powell_Influence.pdf
It goes on to say:
Early studies focused on the linkage between PAC donations and roll call votes in Congress. Some of these studies found contributions influenced votes, but many others did not. While methodologically it is difficult to estimate the causal influence of donations, the larger problem is that much of the influence of donations is likely to occur earlier in the legislative process, when decisions are made about earmarks and other details of legislation that matter greatly to donors.
That's what they're talking about at their high-dollar fundraisers, Flash. The same ones most of them attend every evening. And we know this to be true because of this:
Your link at the top of this thread doesn't speak to the influence donors have on the political process...it just theorizes that in a public campaign system, incumbents would be more likely to win...which isn't surprising because an incumbent that doesn't have to spend 90% of their time raising money can instead use that reclaimed time to do their legislative and representative duties.
Doing that kind of thing will reward the candidate with votes.
Or, if the candidate writes and passes legislation their constituents don't like, has to defend that record in order to retain those voters or gain more.
Now, isn't that way more representation than going to a "sweat shop" to call rich people for money?
Doing that kind of thing will reward the candidate with votes.
Or, if the candidate writes and passes legislation their constituents don't like, has to defend that record in order to retain those voters or gain more.
Now, isn't that way more representation than going to a "sweat shop" to call rich people for money?
Some more, because I know how much Flash loves multiple sources:
Issue One CEO Nick Penniman talked about the amount of time that members of Congress spend fundraising. He recounted anecdotes from members of Congress, explained how fundraising has changed and how it affects their ability to legislate.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4706765/time-spent-fundraising-congress
How Much Time Do Congress-Members Spend Fundraising?
2/3 according to Tom Daschle
https://bulletin.represent.us/much-time-congress-members-spend-fundraising/
Can the internet save Congress from “call time”?
In politics, the fundraising really never ends, with new campaigns often beginning as soon as the last one ends. But some politicians are trying to disrupt the traditional fundraising model, leveraging small online donations to avoid the practice of courting big donors.
Several presidential candidates have said they will avoid corporate political action committee money, and Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren has promised to avoid “call time,” when candidates can spend hours a day on the phone with donors to raise money for their campaign and the party. U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat from New York, has also said she won’t take time out of her day to work the phones.
https://www.marketplace.org/2019/03/04/can-internet-save-congress-call-time/
^GEE, ISN'T THIS EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING??????
Will Flash change his mind in light of all this evidence? Of course not, because Flash is a lazy arrogant turd who makes shit up about himself, and can't bring himself to admit that someone else might actually know more about something than him.
Issue One CEO Nick Penniman talked about the amount of time that members of Congress spend fundraising. He recounted anecdotes from members of Congress, explained how fundraising has changed and how it affects their ability to legislate.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4706765/time-spent-fundraising-congress
How Much Time Do Congress-Members Spend Fundraising?
2/3 according to Tom Daschle
https://bulletin.represent.us/much-time-congress-members-spend-fundraising/
Can the internet save Congress from “call time”?
In politics, the fundraising really never ends, with new campaigns often beginning as soon as the last one ends. But some politicians are trying to disrupt the traditional fundraising model, leveraging small online donations to avoid the practice of courting big donors.
Several presidential candidates have said they will avoid corporate political action committee money, and Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren has promised to avoid “call time,” when candidates can spend hours a day on the phone with donors to raise money for their campaign and the party. U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat from New York, has also said she won’t take time out of her day to work the phones.
https://www.marketplace.org/2019/03/04/can-internet-save-congress-call-time/
^GEE, ISN'T THIS EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING??????
Will Flash change his mind in light of all this evidence? Of course not, because Flash is a lazy arrogant turd who makes shit up about himself, and can't bring himself to admit that someone else might actually know more about something than him.
Yet another retiring member of congress complains about the misery of fundraising
The latest to follow this pattern is Steve Israel, the Democratic New York congressman and chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (the Democrats' main fundraising committee for House races). By his own estimate in a New York Times op-ed, he "spent roughly 4,200 hours in call time, attended more than 1,600 fund-raisers just for my own campaign and raised nearly $20 million in increments of $1,000, $2,500 and $5,000 per election cycle."
"I attended political action committee fund-raisers, which are like panhandling with hors d'oeuvres. There were hours of "call time" huddled in a cubicle, dialing donors. Sometimes double dialing and triple dialing. Whispering sweet nothings and other small talk into the phone in hopes of receiving large somethings. I'd sit next to an assistant who collated "call sheets" with donor's names, contribution histories and other useful information. ("How's Sheila? Your wife. Oh, Shelly? Sorry.")"
https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2016/1/8/10736402/congress-fundraising-miserable
Just because you're woefully ignorant of money in politics, and don't care to educate yourself or put in the work, doesn't mean it isn't the single corrupting factor in it.
It just means you are either being willfully ignorant or you're just the most naïve and dense person in America.
The latest to follow this pattern is Steve Israel, the Democratic New York congressman and chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (the Democrats' main fundraising committee for House races). By his own estimate in a New York Times op-ed, he "spent roughly 4,200 hours in call time, attended more than 1,600 fund-raisers just for my own campaign and raised nearly $20 million in increments of $1,000, $2,500 and $5,000 per election cycle."
"I attended political action committee fund-raisers, which are like panhandling with hors d'oeuvres. There were hours of "call time" huddled in a cubicle, dialing donors. Sometimes double dialing and triple dialing. Whispering sweet nothings and other small talk into the phone in hopes of receiving large somethings. I'd sit next to an assistant who collated "call sheets" with donor's names, contribution histories and other useful information. ("How's Sheila? Your wife. Oh, Shelly? Sorry.")"
https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2016/1/8/10736402/congress-fundraising-miserable
Just because you're woefully ignorant of money in politics, and don't care to educate yourself or put in the work, doesn't mean it isn't the single corrupting factor in it.
It just means you are either being willfully ignorant or you're just the most naïve and dense person in America.
And it's not just liberals who see the problem for what it is...even Conservatives know it's a problem:
Being in Congress is still all about fundraising, and voters are tired of it
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-about-fundraising-and-voters-are-tired-of-it
Campaign cash trumps work in Congress, ex-members say | Secrets of the Hill
https://www.courierpress.com/story/...gress-ex-members-say-secrets-hill/1457433002/
Why Do Congressmen Spend Only Half Their Time Serving Us?
https://www.newsweek.com/why-do-congressmen-spend-only-half-their-time-serving-us-357995
Congress has collectively spent 94 years fundraising since 2015
Just 0.29 percent of Americans have contributed more than $200 to political campaigns this election cycle. This matters because when members of Congress dial for dollars, they aren’t calling people who can only give $5 or $10—they’re often not even calling people in their districts or home states. Instead they’re talking to a tiny sliver of the population that has a very different set of concerns than the average voter. The result is a congressional agenda bent heavily in favor of the priorities of the wealthy.
https://www.issueone.org/congress-collectively-spent-94-years-fundraising-since-2015/
Flash sees no problem with any of this.
Being in Congress is still all about fundraising, and voters are tired of it
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-about-fundraising-and-voters-are-tired-of-it
Campaign cash trumps work in Congress, ex-members say | Secrets of the Hill
https://www.courierpress.com/story/...gress-ex-members-say-secrets-hill/1457433002/
Why Do Congressmen Spend Only Half Their Time Serving Us?
https://www.newsweek.com/why-do-congressmen-spend-only-half-their-time-serving-us-357995
Congress has collectively spent 94 years fundraising since 2015
Just 0.29 percent of Americans have contributed more than $200 to political campaigns this election cycle. This matters because when members of Congress dial for dollars, they aren’t calling people who can only give $5 or $10—they’re often not even calling people in their districts or home states. Instead they’re talking to a tiny sliver of the population that has a very different set of concerns than the average voter. The result is a congressional agenda bent heavily in favor of the priorities of the wealthy.
https://www.issueone.org/congress-collectively-spent-94-years-fundraising-since-2015/
Flash sees no problem with any of this.
It just goes on and on...
Insight: In Washington, lawmakers' routines shaped by fundraising
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...s-shaped-by-fundraising-idUSBRE95B05520130612
Bullock calls to limit fundraising of lawmakers, president
“Expecting our elected leaders to spend at least half of their time actually doing their jobs might sound radical in D.C., but for the rest of us it’s just common sense,” Bullock said in a statement. “Washington hasn’t passed a budget on time in more than 20 years, yet members of Congress spend half their days soliciting donations from wealthy donors and big corporations. It’s time for our elected officials to do their job instead of spending their time on a never-ending re-election campaign.”
https://apnews.com/fb8dc7ff6e3e41f68ed5721f9bc1e98e
WHAT IT’S LIKE TO BE ROLODEXED: ONE CANDIDATE’S JOURNEY INTO THE REALITY OF POLITICAL FUNDRAISING
"The time spent courting donors disconnects you from voters"
https://theintercept.com/2018/01/31/democratic-party-political-fundraising-dccc/
This is what "putting in the work" means, Flash...not attempting to glide by on your unearned and underserved privilege of fake anecdotes and broad assumptions.
Insight: In Washington, lawmakers' routines shaped by fundraising
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...s-shaped-by-fundraising-idUSBRE95B05520130612
Bullock calls to limit fundraising of lawmakers, president
“Expecting our elected leaders to spend at least half of their time actually doing their jobs might sound radical in D.C., but for the rest of us it’s just common sense,” Bullock said in a statement. “Washington hasn’t passed a budget on time in more than 20 years, yet members of Congress spend half their days soliciting donations from wealthy donors and big corporations. It’s time for our elected officials to do their job instead of spending their time on a never-ending re-election campaign.”
https://apnews.com/fb8dc7ff6e3e41f68ed5721f9bc1e98e
WHAT IT’S LIKE TO BE ROLODEXED: ONE CANDIDATE’S JOURNEY INTO THE REALITY OF POLITICAL FUNDRAISING
"The time spent courting donors disconnects you from voters"
https://theintercept.com/2018/01/31/democratic-party-political-fundraising-dccc/
This is what "putting in the work" means, Flash...not attempting to glide by on your unearned and underserved privilege of fake anecdotes and broad assumptions.
I'm realizing that Flash won't read a single thing I posted because if he did, he'd have to change his mind and agree with me, and that is something he simply cannot do on a personal level.
So to summarize:
1. Incumbency isn't bad if it's in a system where the incumbent doesn't have to solicit cash from out-of-state wealthy donors and corporations, forcing the incumbent to do constituent outreach and accomplish legislative goals.
2. Most politicians spend at least half of their time calling those big out-of-state donors for money
3. While attending these high-dollar fundraisers and receptions, the candidate are inundated by elites with different political values than the majority of their constituency. That influence then carries its way early into the political process, as the study I linked to showed.
4. AOC and Warren both refused to do "call times", choosing instead to appeal to small donors on social media, not getting funding from unnamed, ambiguous "liberal groups" as Flash alleged.
5. The corrupting influence of money in politics is precisely why the system is so fucked...which is why most representatives spend little time engaging with their constituents...which is why 50% of voters don't even show up to vote.
So, I'm not sure how any of that is an indictment of a public campaign finance system, which based on all the above, seems a much better, more efficient, less costly way to do it. One that actually increases civic engagement, letting politicians do their actual jobs which is to legislate and represent the people in their district/state.
So to summarize:
1. Incumbency isn't bad if it's in a system where the incumbent doesn't have to solicit cash from out-of-state wealthy donors and corporations, forcing the incumbent to do constituent outreach and accomplish legislative goals.
2. Most politicians spend at least half of their time calling those big out-of-state donors for money
3. While attending these high-dollar fundraisers and receptions, the candidate are inundated by elites with different political values than the majority of their constituency. That influence then carries its way early into the political process, as the study I linked to showed.
4. AOC and Warren both refused to do "call times", choosing instead to appeal to small donors on social media, not getting funding from unnamed, ambiguous "liberal groups" as Flash alleged.
5. The corrupting influence of money in politics is precisely why the system is so fucked...which is why most representatives spend little time engaging with their constituents...which is why 50% of voters don't even show up to vote.
So, I'm not sure how any of that is an indictment of a public campaign finance system, which based on all the above, seems a much better, more efficient, less costly way to do it. One that actually increases civic engagement, letting politicians do their actual jobs which is to legislate and represent the people in their district/state.