That means the wealthy donors must be liberals because we have a history of passing liberal legislation from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, poverty programs, tax benefits for middle class (IRA), ADA, ACA, union organizing efforts................And, if your assumption is those with the money get their legislation passed, the liberals have been successful.
Interest groups and lobbyists are not the same thing. A group may hire a lobbyist to push its goals, but access is the goal, not legislation.
Lobbying and campaign contributions are not the same thing. Some lobbyist give contributions from the group(s) they represent and some do not. Groups like the AARP lobby but cannot give money.
If you were a House member and represented an agricultural district in KY and really wanted to follow the wishes of your constituents and want to be reelected, you are going to do everything you can to save the tobacco industry whether they give you any money or not.
You fail to mention all your claims about the influence of money in elections and legislation is unverifiable and goes against years of established studies in political science, economics, and sociology.
I tried to introduce an interesting story and specifically stated the conclusion was not based on any evidence. You have to get hostile and accuse people of lying and making stuff up. You have ruined another decent debate.
That means the wealthy donors must be liberals because we have a history of passing liberal legislation from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, poverty programs, tax benefits for middle class (IRA), ADA, ACA, union organizing efforts................And, if your assumption is those with the money get their legislation passed, the liberals have been successful.
You fail to mention all your claims about the influence of money in elections and legislation is unverifiable and goes against years of established studies in political science, economics, and sociology.
If money doesn't buy influence, then why do certain people max out their campaign contributions and/or bundle contributions from other rich people?
If money doesn't buy influence, then why do certain people max out their campaign contributions and/or bundle contributions from other rich people?
That must mean Republicans are bribed by conservative interest groups and Democrats are bribed by liberal interest groups?
Funny that they are bring bribed to vote the same way as their political leanings.
So back when Social Security was passed, donating to political campaigns wasn't a thing. Sure there was political contributors and donors, but they generally donated to the party, not to individual candidates. The party then dispersed its campaign funds to the candidates it wanted to back. During the 1930's, the Financial Industry was donating almost exclusively to Republicans, not Democrats. So FDR wasn't obligated to them, which is why we got the New Deal and Social Security.
If members of Congress are bring bribed why don't all members of Congress vote the same way? Certainly the groups giving the most money are bribing all of them to vote their way, but Congress is closely divided in many of their votes.
The point is that you have no evidence to support your claim, just often repeated cliches.
Provide an example of a vote taken by Bernie Sanders that shows he was bribed by some group that gave him money.
The same reason you vote--to elect candidates they support.
The same reason you vote--to elect candidates they support.
Well, this is chicken-and-egg isn't it?
Do they have these beliefs before they get the money, or do they have the beliefs because they got the money?
The very fact that question has to be asked shows you the inherent flaws in the current system.