January 29, 2005

How a bill becomes a law
posted by creamy 19 years ago
  • Have any primary school or college textbooks done much to convey the huge influence of money & corporate interests in politics? The idea of congressmen developing their bills based on pressure from Kiwanis Clubs and little old ladies seems a little passe, though I concede the point on NIMBYs, sentimental measures, and heavily publicized issues.
  • Ah the US - best government money can buy.
  • Have any primary school or college textbooks done much to convey the huge influence of money & corporate interests in politics? Honestly, they should have, because despite our post-modern cynicism about our process, this was every bit the case in the last couple decades of the 19th century as it is today. Hopefully we won't need another Depression to correct it... but we probably will.
  • Depression or Revolution? Didn't the rest of you watch Schoolhouse Rock? I know how a bill becomes a law. I'm just a bill on Capitol Hill /childlike wonder and credulity
  • The idea of congressmen developing their bills based on pressure from Kiwanis Clubs and little old ladies seems a little passe I'm not aware of any college text at any rate that would have talked about bills coming from pressure from the Kiwanis and little old ladies. Have any primary school or college textbooks done much to convey the huge influence of money & corporate interests in politics? Sure, but the usual way this stuff gets approached is trying to deal with over-reactive cynicism, like that in the link. Most of the time for most of them, there's not much difference between supporting a "corporate interest" and supporting their local community. When you have a big pulp mill in your district, and lots of your voters work there, and more of your voters depend on the plant indirectly for their livelihoods, it's utterly unsurprising to see that congressman vote against tighter restrictions on pulp mills, either because he's a corporate stooge or because he doesn't want his district to crash economically; take your pick. What kind of idiot asshole, having been elected from this place, would then turn around and hurt the major source of employment in the district? When you live in that district, the guy looks like he's protecting his people or his community. When you live somewhere else and don't actually give a damn whether Nowhere Georgia goes under or stays a going concern, he looks like a corporate stooge. For almost all of them almost all of the time, there's basically -no- amount of money you could give them to get them to cast votes that will piss off their district, because pissed-off districts, even now, kick them out.
  • Have any primary school or college textbooks done much to convey the huge influence of money & corporate interests in politics? In my experience, most high school texts think corporate influence reached it's zenith in the 1890's. Then Teddy Roosevelt came and "fixed" everything. Except for that brief period before the Great Depression... Generally, the issue is presented to the student as historic and quaint, and things today are not like that anymore.
  • Most of the time for most of them, there's not much difference between supporting a "corporate interest" and supporting their local community. Behold the genius of feudalism, what's good for the lord is good for his peasants.
  • Xeny - thank you for importing logic into this discussion. And, Space Coyote - think about your statement. If an important resource was shutting down in your community, and your congressman proposed a bill which would keep it open, whom is the congressman supporting? He might have some backing from industry or whatever, but if it means losses to his constituents, isn't he also supporting them? They are the ones who vote for him. Or, should he take the high road and let it shut down just to get even with corporations. Or, maybe it should shut down? And, by the way, that's one of the thinnest excuses for a link that I've see here, rolypoly. I don't find it insightful or even funny. It's just screed. And, I'm a flaming liberal, so I would probably have cheered if it had had some depth. I mean like reputable sources that support your reason for putting it up. Or, a discussion of recent bills that have violated your standard of purity. Both would have been best. Why don't you try it again, with some content? I'm convinced there's supporting evidence out there somewhere.
  • I have an idea, path, how about, since you want to discuss with sources and support and reason and the like, looking at who actually posted the link before calling somebody out? I believe that I am the one you want to roast, no? Also, if you would like to prove the link wrong, how about using some supporting evidence, some sources, to show what a cock-up that image is - how wrong that person is in thinking money rules the day in politics?
  • The link is right, to the extent that satire always has some truth. Money speaks very powerfully - even when people don't hear it conciously. There have been studies that show when doctors and medical students get free lunches (and other things) from drug companies, they are more likely to proscribe those drugs. I wouldn't be surprised if politicians didn't react similarly. They don't talk to their constituents as often as they hear from lobby groups; those lobbies convince them that this really is the best thing for their constituents, whether it is or not, and whether the way it is being carried out is the best or not. They don't hear or think about alternatives. My city councillor was gung ho on a Walmart coming into my neighbourhood. The only "consultation" meeting on the issue was a meeting in which he and the Wal-Mart representative simply told everyone what would happen, no matter what we thought. The truth is, the neighbourhood really did need a store like Walmart - but rather than build it into the local mall, or replace the local mall (which was a bit of an eyesore) with something that connected up to the street better, they replaced it with a box behind a sea of parking. This neigbourhood was already fractured by too many fast streets, too little pedestrian friendliness - but the city councillor didn't even take this opportinity to suggest that the Wal-mart might have been placed next to the street with the high parking lot beside or behind it (no more inconvenient for the cars), in order to try to improve the streetscape in this place, in accordance with the official city plan. Of course, this is also the city councillor who fought against a home for battered women in the neighbourhood, because he claimed that abused women were prostitutes and crack addicts.
  • creamy & roly - sorry about the name mix up. Also, I just got my tongue sharpened yesterday and am still learning how to use it safely. My previous comment was more cutting than I meant it to be.
  • Man, I love it when people are adult about things. I apologize, too, going overboard with things. jb - It would be nice to know how much legislation comes through lobyyists and how much lobbyists actually represent the desires of the constituency.