[EL] Campaign finance reform and life expectancy

[Craig Holman]

Very well stated, Doug.



"I'll look forward to the evidence that campaign finance reforms prevent famines or improve life expectancy..."
 
Ok, I'll bite:


I don't know if such evidence could exist since we are not likely to get expansive campaign finance reform at the national level, and money has a way of sneaking around reforms. 

Still, I think you will find that a great many middle-of-the-road economists and other observers believe that US trade policy on sugar and some other crops wreak havoc with the economies of poorer nations. Some say ag trade policies are right up there with the HIV epidemic and other public health issues in importance to poor nations. So, there's a policy affecting life expectancy. 

And observers of policy making who think that the ability of the ag lobby to keep these policies in place doesn't come (in part) from how it throws money around DC are simply not paying attention. The ag lobby makes the other lobby sectors look like children. They play hardball and for keeps. 

 
I'm not very familiar with recent campaign finance literature, but often in the social sciences methods and definitions used in studies determine what phenomena we see to the point of missing the real action. After all, interest groups are playing a complex game (with campaign finance as one part of it) and they will make many wrong steps. There's no guarantee you can win with donations, but that doesn't mean you don't need to play the game (if you don't play, you don't win).  

But it seems to me that there are many people around DC who can tell us first-hand how their contributions influenced policies, and another set of people who can tell us first-hand how the policy making process was influenced by contributions. Unless these participants all suffer from an inflated sense of self importance, are under some group delusion, or express thoughts that are just epiphenomena divorced from their behavior, I don't see how one discounts their analysis and experience entirely. In other words, the number of people and the tales they tell are large enough that it is hard to believe there is nothing to it, or that it is just sour grapes of the losing side. Of course, an interesting question is: are the lobbyists playing both sides of the game as a con? But even that would imply that they force people to play by trying to punish those that don't play (e.g., "Your opponents will hire us to coach them how to spread their money around, even if your side doesn't!"). Just as members of congress will sometimes, when asked to move on something, switch the conversation to fundraisers that are coming up. 




Craig Holman, Ph.D.
Government Affairs Lobbyist
Public Citizen
215 Pennsylvania Avenue SE
Washington, D.C. 20003
T-(202) 454-5182
C-(202) 905-7413
F-(202) 547-7392
Holman at aol.com



-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Hess <douglasrhess at gmail.com>
To: law-election <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Sent: Fri, May 4, 2012 11:54 pm
Subject: [EL] Campaign finance reform and life expectancy


 
"I'll look forward to the evidence that campaign finance reforms prevent famines or improve life expectancy..."
 
Ok, I'll bite:


I don't know if such evidence could exist since we are not likely to get expansive campaign finance reform at the national level, and money has a way of sneaking around reforms. 

Still, I think you will find that a great many middle-of-the-road economists and other observers believe that US trade policy on sugar and some other crops wreak havoc with the economies of poorer nations. Some say ag trade policies are right up there with the HIV epidemic and other public health issues in importance to poor nations. So, there's a policy affecting life expectancy. 

And observers of policy making who think that the ability of the ag lobby to keep these policies in place doesn't come (in part) from how it throws money around DC are simply not paying attention. The ag lobby makes the other lobby sectors look like children. They play hardball and for keeps. 

 
I'm not very familiar with recent campaign finance literature, but often in the social sciences methods and definitions used in studies determine what phenomena we see to the point of missing the real action. After all, interest groups are playing a complex game (with campaign finance as one part of it) and they will make many wrong steps. There's no guarantee you can win with donations, but that doesn't mean you don't need to play the game (if you don't play, you don't win).  

But it seems to me that there are many people around DC who can tell us first-hand how their contributions influenced policies, and another set of people who can tell us first-hand how the policy making process was influenced by contributions. Unless these participants all suffer from an inflated sense of self importance, are under some group delusion, or express thoughts that are just epiphenomena divorced from their behavior, I don't see how one discounts their analysis and experience entirely. In other words, the number of people and the tales they tell are large enough that it is hard to believe there is nothing to it, or that it is just sour grapes of the losing side. Of course, an interesting question is: are the lobbyists playing both sides of the game as a con? But even that would imply that they force people to play by trying to punish those that don't play (e.g., "Your opponents will hire us to coach them how to spread their money around, even if your side doesn't!"). Just as members of congress will sometimes, when asked to move on something, switch the conversation to fundraisers that are coming up. 



-D


 
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120505/06c789e5/attachment.html>