Matt Gaetz Under Investigation

[Au165]

(04-08-2021, 09:00 AM)hollodero Wrote: But the same thing is true for a "new" politician as well. If any, the new faces need money for ads and co even more urgently, for no one knows them yet.

In the 2020 congressional races, of the 28 million given to candidates by lobbyists 23 million went to the incumbents. While the new challenger often needs MUCH larger amounts of money to win the challenger rarely gets the money from lobbyists specifically. Of course, that assumes the contributions are all correctly attributed. There is a massive amount of money donated by lawyers who may, or may not, be representing a special interest.

[hollodero]

(04-08-2021, 09:39 AM)Au165 Wrote: In the 2020 congressional races, of the 28 million given to candidates by lobbyists 23 million went to the incumbents. While the new challenger often needs MUCH larger amounts of money to win the challenger rarely gets the money from lobbyists. 

OK, that is interesting. But I figure if there were term limits or anything of the like, this statistics would change. Lobbyists' money always goes somewhere and I doubt the budgets for buying politicians would get reduced or cut.

[GMDino]

(04-08-2021, 09:39 AM)Au165 Wrote: In the 2020 congressional races, of the 28 million given to candidates by lobbyists 23 million went to the incumbents. While the new challenger often needs MUCH larger amounts of money to win the challenger rarely gets the money from lobbyists specifically. 

Incumbents get re-elected at an over 90% rate, correct?  Probably closer to 98%.  Money, name recognition, gerrymandering, etc...all works toward keeping them in office.

[Au165]

(04-08-2021, 09:45 AM)hollodero Wrote: OK, that is interesting. But I figure if there were term limits or anything of the like, this statistics would change. Lobbyists' money always goes somewhere and I doubt the budgets for buying politicians would get reduced or cut.

It's harder to buy someone who hasn't actually done your favor yet because you are banking on their willingness to actually follow through. The money problem of politics really is a complex one that should be addressed, but there is little interest in REALLY digging in because there are a lot of skeletons there. 

[Belsnickel]

(04-08-2021, 10:00 AM)Au165 Wrote: It's harder to buy someone who hasn't actually done your favor yet because you are banking on their willingness to actually follow through. The money problem of politics really is a complex one that should be addressed, but there is little interest in REALLY digging in because there are a lot of skeletons there. 

The money problem in politics isn't as much of a problem as people tend to think it is. Research is telling us that it isn't so much that money results in wins, it's that winners tend to attract money during a campaign. The money being spent is an attempt at influence, gaining favor, which also isn't really a thing. The relationship between money spent and policy outcomes is not a good one. In fact, it's pretty much 50/50 based on the research.

All of this being said, I'm still in favor of campaign finance reforms, but I think that we need to understand that the problem isn't what we tend to make it out to be.

[hollodero]

(04-08-2021, 10:16 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The money problem in politics isn't as much of a problem as people tend to think it is. Research is telling us that it isn't so much that money results in wins, it's that winners tend to attract money during a campaign. The money being spent is an attempt at influence, gaining favor, which also isn't really a thing. The relationship between money spent and policy outcomes is not a good one. In fact, it's pretty much 50/50 based on the research.

What does 50/50 mean? As in I'm a sugar lobbyist (or whatever group) and don't get my policy wishes in 50% of cases?

This for me is hard to take as an argument that influence of money in politics is not that big of a deal. I find it hard to determine how such a split would play out if there's no money involved. Might be be 80/20 or 100/0.

I mean, if it weren't a thing, why would all the interests groups and lobbyists even still spend that much money. They'd realize it's futile after some decades if it really were futile.

[hollodero]

(04-08-2021, 10:00 AM)Au165 Wrote: It's harder to buy someone who hasn't actually done your favor yet because you are banking on their willingness to actually follow through. The money problem of politics really is a complex one that should be addressed, but there is little interest in REALLY digging in because there are a lot of skeletons there. 

Yeah well, to me the American system is open bribery. There's sure a lot of complexity that goes into it, but in principle, that's what it is. From my perspective.

And I don't believe term limits do anytrhing good in that regard. I see your point, but I'd counter that unknown new politicians are probably still more desperate for money and you'd run in danger of constantly leading the hungriest of sheep to the feeding site.

[Belsnickel]

(04-08-2021, 10:21 AM)hollodero Wrote: What does 50/50 mean? As in I'm a sugar lobbyist (or whatever group) and don't get my policy wishes in 50% of cases?

This for me is hard to take as an argument that influence of money in politics is not that big of a deal. I find it hard to determine how such a split would play out if there's no money involved. Might be be 80/20 or 100/0.

I mean, if it weren't a thing, why would all the interests groups and lobbyists even still spend that much money. They'd realize it's futile after some decades if it really were futile.

What I mean by 50/50 is that when policy decisions were studied, the side with lobbyists spending more money won about 50% of the time, meaning that money spent did not really affect policy outcomes. The reason for this is that throughout the research on money in Congress, it was seen that money doesn't ever really sway opinions. Groups spend money on the officials they are already in agreement with. It doesn't move the needle.

[Au165]

(04-08-2021, 10:47 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: What I mean by 50/50 is that when policy decisions were studied, the side with lobbyists spending more money won about 50% of the time, meaning that money spent did not really affect policy outcomes. The reason for this is that throughout the research on money in Congress, it was seen that money doesn't ever really sway opinions. Groups spend money on the officials they are already in agreement with. It doesn't move the needle.

Do you have this research? I'd like to study methodology because I have a hard time believing the money would keep getting spent if they were not receiving favorable results that they otherwise didn't think they could get. In reality, I think lobbying results in getting pork added to legislation that people wouldn't otherwise worry about doing. You can agree on basic things and give money to people who agree with you, but when a special provision ends up in a bill with hundreds of pages to give a tax break to let's say cross-fit studios (hyperbolic example here) do we think the person who added that would have done so otherwise if they weren't paid? Do we think they would be that worried about a very specific carve-out to make sure it got in? I don't at all.

Generally speaking, if a gun lobbyist gives money to pro-gun members that makes sense. It is when you see very specific legislation that gets hidden in bills that has links back to donors you get a feeling it goes beyond common beliefs.

[hollodero]

(04-08-2021, 10:47 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: What I mean by 50/50 is that when policy decisions were studied, the side with lobbyists spending more money won about 50% of the time, meaning that money spent did not really affect policy outcomes. The reason for this is that throughout the research on money in Congress, it was seen that money doesn't ever really sway opinions. Groups spend money on the officials they are already in agreement with. It doesn't move the needle.

I undersstand. But in light of the former, I can not agree with your last sentence. Imho, it moves the needle quite substantially for people already in agreement get all the financial support for their election.

I mean, of course the NRA won't sponsor democrats as much, but their money will help the pro-gun candidate to win... and then, sure, they don't sway his opinion and don't affect the policy outcome with the right candidate already in place.

Maybe I'm reading that all wrong... but in the end, if money wouldn't make a difference, then why would all those interest groups still spend all that money. There has to be an observable Return of Interest.

[Belsnickel]

(04-08-2021, 10:59 AM)Au165 Wrote: Do you have this research? I'd like to study methodology because I have a hard time believing the money would keep getting spent if they were not receiving favorable results that they otherwise didn't think they could get. In reality, I think lobbying results in getting pork added to legislation that people wouldn't otherwise worry about doing. You can agree on basic things and give money to people who agree with you, but when a special provision ends up in a bill with hundreds of pages to give a tax break to let's say cross-fit studios (hyperbolic example here) do we think the person who added that would have done so otherwise if they weren't paid? Do we think they would be that worried about a very specific carve-out to make sure it got in? I don't at all.

Generally speaking, if a gun lobbyist gives money to pro-gun members that makes sense. It is when you see very specific legislation that gets hidden in bills that has links back to donors you get a feeling it goes beyond common beliefs.

I do have the research, but it is a book. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/L/bo6683614.html

Here is a good high level summary of some of the findings, though:


The main thing the research has all pointed to is that money buys access. The more money you spend the more likely you are to get a meeting with the Chief of Staff or the elected official, themselves. I'm fortunate that while this isn't my area of expertise, I work alongside someone for whom this is. He was a grad assistant for this book and has written several himself since then. The allies are more about these revolving door lobbyist types, FWIW, as well as being allied with the gatekeepers like high-ranking officials, i.e. Speaker and Majority Leader.

[BmorePat87]

Gaetz's venmo was public, and reporters found he sent $900 to an accused sex trafficker with the notes "test" and to send the money to a nickname assumed to be a girl. That guy, whose account was public too, sent the same amount split between three women around the same time with "tuition" as the note.

Their accounts have since been set to private.

[GMDino]

Reports are Greenberg is taking a plea deal.

Gaetz is may just be about to find out who is "friends" really are.

[NATI BENGALS]

(04-08-2021, 11:31 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Gaetz's venmo was public, and reporters found he sent $900 to an accused sex trafficker with the notes "test" and to send the money to a nickname assumed to be a girl. That guy, whose account was public too, sent the same amount split between three women around the same time with "tuition" as the note.

Their accounts have since been set to private.

Pretty sad. Many of these types of scumbags probably aren't this dumb. So they will be harder to catch.

This type of guy rigging an election in another state is totally legal though. ?
https://news.yahoo.com/matt-gaetz-reportedly-under-scrutiny-043400750.html

Another serious threat to democracy from the disgusting thing known as 2020's republicans.. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-09-2021, 11:03 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Pretty sad. Many of these types of scumbags probably aren't this dumb. So they will be harder to catch.

Most criminals aren't that bright. 

Quote:This type of guy rigging an election in another state is totally legal though. ?
https://news.yahoo.com/matt-gaetz-reportedly-under-scrutiny-043400750.html

Another serious threat to democracy from the disgusting thing known as 2020's republicans.. 

Ugh, it's this type of hyperbole from you that still manages to surprise and sadden me.  Republicans bad!!!

[hollodero]

(04-09-2021, 01:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ugh, it's this type of hyperbole from you that still manages to surprise and sadden me.  Republicans bad!!!

Yeah... on the other hand though, Republicans, and I mean pretty much all Republicans, have acted so cynical, sycophantic and spineless lately that I understand any appliance of collective guilt over technically singular instances.

Many go with the rigged election lie, local parties censor people speaking out against Trump or Trumpism, most can't even bring themselves to condemn inciting the Capitol riot... this list could go on forever... and for the matter at hand I feel it's fair to say they try every dirty trick to tilt elections in their favor, like with funding ghost candidates (or fake ballot boxes and closing booths in highly populated areas and whatnot). At some point, they deserve what's thrown at them. I of course look to be challenged on that, but that is actually how I feel as well: Republicans bad.

[GMDino]

(04-09-2021, 11:03 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Pretty sad. Many of these types of scumbags probably aren't this dumb. So they will be harder to catch.

This type of guy rigging an election in another state is totally legal though. ?
https://news.yahoo.com/matt-gaetz-reportedly-under-scrutiny-043400750.html

Another serious threat to democracy from the disgusting thing known as 2020's republicans.. 

Better stop pointing out all the things republicans have actually done or you'll start making them look bad.

Or something. 

[samhain]

Well, if he runs for office again maybe he can get Winger to sign off on letting him use a certain song of theirs as his hype music.

[NATI BENGALS]

(04-09-2021, 01:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Most criminals aren't that bright. 


Ugh, it's this type of hyperbole from you that still manages to surprise and sadden me.  Republicans bad!!!

It never used to be this bad. This is the second republican I have seen involved in this type of election rigging in this past election. And I haven’t been actively looking for it. Keep in mind this is the same party who has introduced something like 250+ new election laws this year based on lies from a known conman. It’s disgusting.

You can call me out all you want. I won’t stop until the party gets rid of the scumbag bullshit. Good luck with that as they continue to worship their king maker conman who is still defrauding his own donors.

[fredtoast]

(04-08-2021, 10:16 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The money problem in politics isn't as much of a problem as people tend to think it is. Research is telling us that it isn't so much that money results in wins, it's that winners tend to attract money during a campaign. The money being spent is an attempt at influence, gaining favor, which also isn't really a thing. The relationship between money spent and policy outcomes is not a good one. In fact, it's pretty much 50/50 based on the research.

All of this being said, I'm still in favor of campaign finance reforms, but I think that we need to understand that the problem isn't what we tend to make it out to be.

This.

The "Freakenomics" guys did a study on this and found that money does not have as big of an impact as people believe.