Re: [tlug] Pretending to be outside Japan?

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

Scott Robbins writes:

 > However, you would agree, would you not, sir (sorry, was on jury
 > duty recently, and found that phrasing amusing) that Chuck Dodd,
 > former senator, did fairly blatently say that they had bought their
 > politicians and expected them stay bought?  Obviously, not phrased
 > quite that bluntly.

What's the difference between that and donating money to somebody who
believes in your cause and has the courage of his convictions?  Either
way, the money rules, not the morality of the legislator.

 > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120120/14472117492/mpaa-directly-publicly-threatens-politicians-who-arent-corrupt-enough-to-stay-bought.shtml

 > While they probably won't be shot, they may find that they lose
 > campaign funds they were expecting and lose office to an even more
 > corrupt competitor.

If Coca-Cola doesn't stay bought, and offers you the New Coke, what do
you do?  Withdraw your funds and drink Pepsi (or Wild Turkey, almost
the same color :-), or bid up the price of the remaining stock of
Classic Coke.  Why would a lobby contribute to someone who decides to
vote against them?

Nobody's necessarily corrupt, given the assumption that accepting
campaign contributions isn't fundamentally corrupt.[1]  Most such
behavior can probably be explained by legislators taking money to
support positions that they don't have a moral opinion on and their
constituents don't care about.[2]

Of course most of them probably are corrupt, in more serious ways,
given that their salaries are not even close to competitive with
private sector jobs of similar responsibility.


Footnotes: 
[1]  Lessig's point can be described as questioning that assumption.

[2]  Remember, Congressmen are explicitly expected to represent their
district's interests, regardless of the country's.  If their
constituents don't care, then they should do what's best for the
country.  But it's always arguable that business stability (==
protecting incumbents) is good for the country, and you'll notice that
the labor unions are first in line to argue that when *their* members'
jobs are threatened.