[EL] Campaign finance reform and life expectancy

Sat May 5 15:15:57 PDT 2012

Regarding this:

"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. "

What observers, paid advocates for campaign finance reform?  What is  the 
evidence that money as opposed to other influences resulted in that?   How 
about voters who vote for politicians who support this?  Are some other  
politicians actually convinced that this is a good thing?  Are those  politicians 
strategically placed or particularly powerful?  Pres Roosevelt  got us into 
this. This was his big idea.  Was he just paid off or did  he actually 
believe it? 

This is a complex world and it all coming down to the "corrupting influence 
 of money" always ignore other factors.  Jim Boo

In a message dated 5/5/2012 1:29:15 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
holman at aol.com writes:

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_ 
(mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu) 
 _http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election_ 
(http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election) 

_______________________________________________
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/ebf09f8b/attachment.html>