All About The Money: Reps Who Voted For NSA Surveillance Received 2X As Much Money From Defense Industry
from the but-of-course dept
For many years now, we've pointed out that so much of what drives the fear-mongering about the "intelligence-industrial complex" is pretty simple: money. As in lots and lots of money. All of these intelligence programs require both staffing and systems, and almost all of that goes to a group of well-known big companies who (I'm sure, coincidentally...) also happen to be some of the biggest campaign funders for so many politicians. The folks at MapLight decided to take a look around and noticed that those who voted to keep the NSA's ability to scoop up data on every American's phone call (i.e., rejecting the Amash amendment) had received more than twice as much money from defense contractors as the reps who voted to defund the program:- Representatives voting to continue the NSA's dragnet surveillance programs received on average 122 percent more money ($41,635) from defense contractors and other defense industry interests than did representatives who voted to end the programs (18,765).
- Representative Justin Amash, R-Mich., the chief sponsor of the amendment, has received $1,400 from defense contractors and other defense industry interests.
- Representative Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., has received $526,600 from defense contractors and other defense industry interests, more than any other member of the House. He voted to continue the programs.
Of course, it's not true that purely money "buys" votes -- in some cases it's the other way around, in which votes result in contributions. But, either way, it's no less questionable in terms of how Congress sets its priorities. And, just from the standpoint of how it looks to the American public (and to those around the globe), it's really, really bad. On top of all of this, I'd imagine that most of those at the top of this list have little fear of being voted out of office, because even if they do they'll get a cushy "job" from these private companies.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: campaign contributions, defense contractors, intelligence-industrial complex, lobbying, nsa, nsa surveillance, votes
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm throwing ideas but is there a way to help preventing such auctioning of laws?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a way to help preventing such auctioning of laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Probably not. All political contributions could be outlawed entirely and you would still have the unspoken offers of a job after leaving office, "favors", and other means of corporate manipulation of politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So yes, while there may be solutions they seem to fall under the weight of the corruption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
1. Place strict limits on the length of time for a campaign for office - say like like 6 months. There is only so much a candidate can spend during a certain period of time and lesser funded candidates cannot compete over the long campaign trail due to the cost over time.
2. Make it such that excess money received by candidates not spent during the campaign time automatically goes to relieving the national debt. The candidates do not get to keep the excess money. Mandatory audits of all money received and expenditures would also need to be in place to enforce these rules.
The revolving door would still exist, however with the ability for ethical candidates with less funding to compete, the effects of this would also be limited.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
#2 is easily circumvented. We've seen many "renowned" auditing companies participating in corruption schemes...
It's complicated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for the issue with the audits, the answer to that is simple. The the results of the audits have to be completely transparently available for public review such that watchdog groups can call them on it when they are caught cheating.
Also codify into it, severe penalties for violations on the magnitude of those currently in place for tax fraud or SEC insider trading penalties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Ninja on Jul 29th, 2013 @ 5:27am
If they have any conflict of interest at all (financially) on a bill then they should be ineligible to vote on it.
It's akin to insider trading.
They sure wouldn't let Joe Public get away with such antics!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @"Ninja": Yes, there is: Steeply progressive tax rates.
Especially taxes on Wall Street stock trades, currently totally untaxed: a rigged casino, not financing industry.
High taxes were done in modern times up to the Reagan administration. After promising general prosperity, what lower tax rates have done is caused The Rich (and Congress) to go for short term gains, to get incredibly rich hollowing out American industry, and recently to loot directly, and now engineering a collapse in which the 5% who now get well over half the national income get nearly all, under a corporatized control grid worse than any political system yet.
We can't tinker around the edges: people just have to see that to be Rich is to be evil.
I admit that limiting The Rich takes a whole culture to implement, and we're quickly losing the sense of economic justice. You kids have been sold the notion that what's good for The Rich will soon be good for you, but the evidence of 30 years is now in, and it's total lie. The prior progressive tax rates created more equality, and morality is closely related to money: everyone who gets Rich becomes corrupt, so you can't expect Congress to remain moral while people and corporations have unlimited money to bribe them.
You only asked for help, but limiting The Rich by merely taking away incredible excesses would cure 90% of all societal problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @"Ninja": Yes, there is: Steeply progressive tax rates.
This is quite extreme!
Realistically speaking - and unless we hit some sort of perfect utopia - you'll always have people that are rich and poor relatively to each other.
The important thing - I think - is not to let the gap between rich and poor widen too much. And the key to achieve this is not to hammer on those at the top, but to give a hand to those at the bottom to reach closer to the top.
Pushing towards the top is the only way to achieve progress. Pushing the top down will only ensure mediocrity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @"Ninja": Yes, there is: Steeply progressive tax rates.
Yes, some rich people are criminals who have no regard for anything but their own well being; but the same can be said about some poor people.
Generalised attacks help no one or nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @"Ninja": Yes, there is: Steeply progressive tax rates.
The "rich" can manipulate the stock market and cause a global economic collapse, ruining the lives of millions (perhaps Billions?) of people for years, for example. A poor person has no such ability.
So I sort of understand the hate. I am merely pointing out that we'll never reach the top if we keep racing to the bottom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"Ninja": Yes, there is: Steeply progressive tax rates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"Ninja": Yes, there is: Steeply progressive tax rates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"Ninja": Yes, there is: Steeply progressive tax rates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"Ninja": Yes, there is: Steeply progressive tax rates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @"Ninja": Yes, there is: Steeply progressive tax rates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @"Ninja": Yes, there is: Steeply progressive tax rates.
Well that was certainly the position Jesus took as well. Then again Christianity is a slave religion I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @"Ninja": Yes, there is: Steeply progressive tax rates.
Remember, his apostles were fishermen and carpenters, at the time, those were pretty wealthy professions. Heck, Jesus even promoted making sure that people pay their full taxes "give Ceasar's things unto Ceasar" after all.
Some of the people he worked with were prostitutes, tax collectors, the rich and the poor.
Jesus didn't care.
He DID, however, have a strong dislike of people who abused their positions for wealth and gain while leaving everyone behind, remember what he did to the money takers in the temple?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It would seem hard to enforce x % of representatives as beneficiaries since the amount of money mostly gets channelled through employees of the "dirty companies". x % would force "clean companies" to put restrictions on their employees handing over of money, which is not desirable.
There are other ways to reduce the effect, but those take election reform (if you no longer have only 2 real fractions dilution and blurry compromises reduce the value of a bought politician, if the politicians were less likely to tow party line which would likely be achieved by opening the primaries, if the congressmen and house representatives were up for vote more often, their value to companies would fall etc. etc.), a far longer and more open hearing process when laws are underway and non-compete clauses, barring politicians from certain jobs for at least some years. None of those are realistic since it is either in all politicians fear to lose their last glimmer of privacy or it is a partisan issue where one party benifits more than the other, which makes it even harder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lobbying according to Constitution framer Madison
When the Constitution was crafted by Framers such as James Madison, their intent was to design a governmental system in which powerful interest groups would be rendered incapable of subdoing the general will. According to Madison, a faction was "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." Madison considered factions as dangerous, since they threatened to bring about tyranny if their control became too great.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Submitted by Donny Shaw on Jul 23, 2013"
Speaking of money: What value do you add to this that brings you income? Without that source as inspiration for a bit of ranting, and taking the blockquote intact, you have exactly bupkis. You're supposedly an economist, so should be able to explain it in 25 or fewere simple words...
This is a big mystery of teh internets, and yet again I call on Mike to explain how his magic money machine actually works, 'cause that's apparently a WHOLE lot more reliable than any notion he's put out for us to try. Guess we can ALL just re-post Mike's text, sit back and let the money roll in...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Submitted by Donny Shaw on Jul 23, 2013"
All which makes him money, how you cannot see this is absurd. But what should I expect from you, the village idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Submitted by Donny Shaw on Jul 23, 2013"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are just like the rest of
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They are just like the rest of
I think we have a word for this.
"ERMAHGHERD!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
solution from canada
and limit single contributors to 1000 bucks....
make it 10 year sin prison to skirt rules ( go tougher then canada on that aspect i mean )
and you solve literally over night a load a problems....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: solution from canada
But Corporations are people too! [sarcasm].
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: solution from canada
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: solution from canada
Seriously though, why, in your mind, does taking my small business and incorporating it magically remove my right to petition the government for a redress of grievances?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: solution from canada
It doesn't, and nobody is suggesting otherwise. But let's look at this for a minute:
If you're running a sole proprietorship, you are your business. There is no distinction. Speak away.
If you incorporate, you are no longer your business. The corporation is a distinct legal entity, separate from you. I don't think that corporations should be afforded the same rights as human beings, since they are legal fictions, not human beings. Some of the same rights? Sure, but let's call them "privileges" in this context.
You, however, are still a human being and still have all the same rights that you had before. Nothing has been curtailed. Speak away!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: solution from canada
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Politics is rotten to the core and the entire system needs an urgent reboot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- start calling it what it is: corruption
- make voting less dependent on big wallets / donations: give everyone a fixed amount of air/billboard/space/whatever (something like this would also give the whole country a sudden boost of millions of dollars that can be spent on useful things)
- stop treating companies as people (or, alternatively, go all the way and imprison them for being dangers to society. You guys still got that death sentence, right?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what about a "salary cap" on contributions?
In short, contributions must come from a real person.
Political campaigns would have to go "grassroots" and come from a politician's pocket, but a cap on "ad spend" would also be placed, to even the playing field for all candidates.
I like this idea-fest, but "how to" actually implement it would be another thing entirely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't Forget the Parties
Dump the political parties along with the money in politics. Let a candidate stand on their own experience, ability to express, and ethics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is true if referring to an elected US politico ...
Or, at least, so it appears to an outsider ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However, it is abundantly clear that money "influences" votes, and while it is not the sole determining factor (as it would be in cases of "bought" votes), it plays an egregiously large role in politics, as the reported document makes clear. I for one would like to see a ban on all campaign contributions, both from companies and citizens. Make it so that no candidate can spend any money to advance their campaign; no ads of any kind would be a huge start. Take away the uses for campaign contributions and you take away the impetus for giving them. Politicians would only be able to influence voters through public debates with their opponents, giving everyone a level playing field regardless of funding. Further, without the constant blasting of attack ads and emotional appeals, one might hope that voters will be more inclined to actually research the candidates before voting.
Once the need for funding is gone, you cut the power of lobbying groups considerably. There will still be those instances of "favors" for voting certain ways, but those are risky to both entities, and will never be as pervasive as influencing through election contributions.
It wouldn't fix everything overnight, but banning campaign advertising of any kind would be a huge first step.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I told you so!
Let's face facts here:
Money talks, everything else walks.
That goes for every single Congress critter alive right now. If they didn't have campaigns that need to be financed (starting next year by the way), they'd be less emboldened to support the illegal activities of any government agency.
But since they are, they turn a blind eye to all of it, and a eagle eye for their donors and the money.
The worst Congress money can buy, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Finally - a 1st place win for the USA
End of Story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's Obvious
1. write laws to put you out of business, or
2. Vote for those laws that were written by others"
Criminals, I tell ya!
Maybe if we just shut up and leave them alone, Congress and Big Business will eliminate each other....Nah!!
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correlation
The system may be broken, but there isn't anything sinister beyond that going on here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]