04-08-2021, 10:59 AM
(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.
