You're viewing a single thread.
Yup, and with good reason. Thanks "Citizen's United!"
https://www.commondreams.org/news/progressives-lose-oregon-primaries
https://apnews.com/article/cori-bush-aipac-house-race-missouri-568c1a84974b8ba176a8d27a8375de42
I used to think lobby groups are influential in determining the outcome of these elections but I think the reality is they align themselves with candidates that are slated to more likely win. Sometimes they even fund both candidates. Money just doesn't seem to translate to effective victory. Look at Bloomberg in 2016. That guy spent an ungodly amount of money on his campaign - - - more than all the candidates combined or something close.
Cory Bowman was already waning in popularity. From your article:
Bowman had several compounding low-level mistakes and scandals that could easily be hammered home to voters, like pulling the fire alarm at the Capitol or his controversial hip-hop lyrics. Beyond that, Latimer is a popular politician who has represented most of the district’s voters for years. Add in more money than any group has ever spent on a congressional primary by an enormous margin, and you have the conditions for a win.
I think it all depends. I'm not saying AIPAC is not influential. I just don't think it's so clear cut. I think the money in more to get access. The reality is Israel is popular with boomers, and Dem boomers vote. We are starting to see a shift with younger voters but it's just not there yet.
I think the money in more to get access
Access to what and for what purpose?
Access to influence policy and legislation. But they seem to get mixed results. There have been a few studies that looked at the actual effects of lobbying. I may have to dig around but i can track them down. It's very interesting because it upturned what my assumptions were about lobbying.
It seems they find candidates that are already somewhat aligned and work no push the scale further. Like, someone like Latimer wouldn't need a lot to push the scale in favor of AIPAC objectives.
It's very interesting to read up on this.
It certainly goes some way to explain why lobbyists buy politicians for pennies in the grand scheme of things, but ultimately you're saying the same thing with a different inflection.
Sort of. It's a mixed bag is what I'm saying. It's just not as impactful as we all imagine it to be. Some politicians are very corrupt obviously. But it's not this prevalent "corporations own congress" kinda thing.