Apr 17 2009
Relocated: My problem with looking at “special interests”
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
My problem with looking at “special interests”
Alright. So here’s my big problem with political analysis. Everybody looks at where people’s campaign money comes from, and where they votes, and then points there finger. This is very problematic. As anybody who studied social sciences knows is that just because there is a relationship doesn’t mean it’s a causal one. Furthermore, in some situations (this one included) it’s tough to say which way the causal relationship flows. Let me frame it this way.
You are the gaming industry (native or otherwise). You decide you want to actively participate in electoral politics. Are you going to donate your money to candidate A who opposes expansion of gaming, or candidate B who is a proponent of your industry?
Exactly. There is a difference between people donating money because a candidate supports their cause and a candidate supporting a cause because somebody donates money. And, it’s tough to tell which way it’s going.
As a rule of thumb for me, there’s three points.
First- when did they start supporting this cause?
If a person has been a champion for certain issues for years, it doesn’t really matter to me. They are probably getting money because of those stances.
Second- is the stance within the person’s generally established political framework?
If the person is a free market proponent, perhaps supporting gaming shouldn’t be that surprising. If you have a pro-regulation, anti-porn, anti-drinking, pro-tax candidate who suddenly starts supporting casinos, maybe we should ask questions.
Third- is the person consistent in their overall philosophy?
That is, is the person willing to upset donors when their political, moral, or other personal philosophies tell them they should. For example, McCain’s voting record is not 100% pro-tribal gaming. He has voted against tribal gaming on a couple of major issues.
I use McCain and gaming as an example because I think it’s been thrown out a lot lately, but this really is non-partisan and non-specific. It goes for all kinds of politicians on both sides of the spectrum. I think that 90% of the time, the money follows the political opinion, not the other way around. And 90% of the time, the public and the media assume/portray that relationship going the other way.
Posted by Zach at 11:51 PM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: campaign finance, politics, special interest
Jinny,
The posts in the category “Zach Thinks” and with titles reading Relocated: XXX are all old posts from my old blog. The rest of the posts are newer. Thanks for stopping by and posting.