> I'm not denying this. But going back to the original question, does that mean we should ban any attempts at influencing politicians?
This sets up a binary position that doesn't need to exist. I don't think "ban any attempts at influencing politicians" is what I took away from the GP's comment/suggestion, nor do I think this is the automatic outcome of rules that restrict business interests.
What I took away was something like this: the current environment involves obviously inflated influence from a subset of well-funded groups, and that won't change without changes to laws. GP presented an idea that would restrict that influence, but this is not synonymous with the binary outcome "ban all attempts at influencing politicians", nor do I think such a goal would even make sense, because what is the purpose of a representative if not to be be influenced by their constituents? The real question is whether or not it's acceptable that influence scales primarily based on wealth/friendship, and what changes we can make to level the playing field.
I don't know if GP's $0.02 are the right policy positions, but I also don't think holding those positions equates to the binary position.
This sets up a binary position that doesn't need to exist. I don't think "ban any attempts at influencing politicians" is what I took away from the GP's comment/suggestion, nor do I think this is the automatic outcome of rules that restrict business interests.
What I took away was something like this: the current environment involves obviously inflated influence from a subset of well-funded groups, and that won't change without changes to laws. GP presented an idea that would restrict that influence, but this is not synonymous with the binary outcome "ban all attempts at influencing politicians", nor do I think such a goal would even make sense, because what is the purpose of a representative if not to be be influenced by their constituents? The real question is whether or not it's acceptable that influence scales primarily based on wealth/friendship, and what changes we can make to level the playing field.
I don't know if GP's $0.02 are the right policy positions, but I also don't think holding those positions equates to the binary position.