BigBallinStalin wrote: patches70 wrote:
217 to 205 was the vote.
Someone went ahead and did some addition. The 217 congressmen who voted to uphold the program received twice the campaign financing from the defense industry than did the 205 members.
Imagine that.....http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/0 ... -nsa-vote/
That's interesting link, and thanks for sharing.
Corruption/crony capitalism can be difficult to demonstrate.
Why didn't those receiving twice as less vote "Yes" as well? Is there some significant difference between receiving $20,000 and $40,000 from the defense/intelligence industries? What else influences the politicians' decision, and how can we control for that?
If this is about measuring the pull of the intelligence industry, then why dirty the sample by including the entire defense
(I guess they're intertwined, but to what degree for each donator and for each politician?)
I don't know why those receiving less didn't vote for the program. Maybe because they are "punishing" the donors "Well, if you won't donate to my campaign then I won't vote for anything that favors you, give me more money and you'll get a vote in the future", kind of a shake down?
Maybe those voting against the program did so because they believe it's wrong, even if they've received some
funding from the defense industry.
Probably all kinds of thing influence politicians votes, besides money. But at least money gets one an audience with the politician to at least state the case for a favorable vote.
AS to why measure the pull of the intelligence industry and dirtying the sample with the entire Military Industrial complex, well, I'm not naive. The authors of the study, the article, have their own agenda I'd guess. Which includes muddying the waters to get a sympathetic reaction by people who read the story, to influence thought. As all media is designed to, ultimately.
One could get all the information themselves as to actual donation amounts to actual politicians. I can easily post an entire list of who voted for, against and the twelve who abstained from voting, right here. Then one need go politician by politician and get actual donation amounts as all that is public record due to campaign finance laws.
But it's a lot of work, a lot more than most are willing to do, if they aren't being paid to do it. One would have to care enough I guess. But the actual work itself isn't too hard, just tedious. Anyone with a computer and half a brain could do it. But coming to conclusions based on even that what seems "complete" information, is still not a complete picture to answer to the "why".
I'm sure there are some politicians who voted for the NSA program that truly believe it's the right thing to do.
I disagree with that view, but each has his/her own way of looking at things I guess. Time will tell if this NSA stuff is a good thing or a bad thing or nothing at all.