• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do U.S. Senators and U.S. House Reps Represent Their Voters or Donors?

Do U.S. Senators and House Reps Represent voters or their Donors?

  • They represent the voters

    Votes: 2 5.9%

  • They represent the donors

    Votes: 20 58.8%

  • It depends on the issue and the bill for who they represent

    Votes: 12 35.3%
  • Total voters
    34
Winston

Winston

Give me convenience or give me death
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2017
Messages
24,750
Reaction score
24,125
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
On average. I'm sure you can find one here or, one there. But, that would be like one dot, way far away, from a cluster of dots around the "We're bought and paid for" vortex.

That Grassley comment on the "women, booze, and movies" got me thinking how little he represents the voters who voted for him.

What do you think?
 
They represent whoever is convenient at the moment, and whoever stands to afford them the most gain. Sometimes that's wealthy financiers. Sometimes it's the middle class. And sometimes, it's the poor.

So, option four. They represent themselves, first, and foremost.
 
I think that there is so much money in politics that politicians usually feel the need to appease their donors. They may have some desire to do something good every once in a while, but they view big money as an absolute necessity. People get put on the back burner, and are too often forgotten about. I was unpleasantly surprised during this tax bill fiasco when multiple politicians literally said they had to pass it or their donors may not give them money, but it was a little refreshing to see them be so open about it.
 
KevinKohler said:
They represent whoever is convenient at the moment, and whoever stands to afford them the most gain. Sometimes that's wealthy financiers. Sometimes it's the middle class. And sometimes, it's the poor.

So, option four. They represent themselves, first, and foremost.
Click to expand...

Agreed... but that actually #3 reworded.
 
They better represent the donors or they won't be back.
 
It's obvious. 23% of Americans favor the tax plan, and it's being shoved down our throats. The majority of Americans favored the Paris Accord, and Adios. Etc, etc...
 
Winston said:
On average. I'm sure you can find one here or, one there. But, that would be like one dot, way far away, from a cluster of dots around the "We're bought and paid for" vortex.

That Grassley comment on the "women, booze, and movies" got me thinking how little he represents the voters who voted for him.

What do you think?
Click to expand...

I am jaded here, so I voted that they represent their donors.

I think most people go to Washington with idealistic hope that they can change things, but once they get there, and see just how corrupt everything is, they throw up their hands and say, "Well hell. Ima get mine, too." There may be a few out there, but I haven't seen any.
 
Winston said:
On average. I'm sure you can find one here or, one there. But, that would be like one dot, way far away, from a cluster of dots around the "We're bought and paid for" vortex.

That Grassley comment on the "women, booze, and movies" got me thinking how little he represents the voters who voted for him.

What do you think?
Click to expand...

First of all, I don't like these kinds of broad brush polls. There are Congressmen of both types. Second of all, I don't think the "issues" matters that much. Congressmen...of both types...are about politics. They are about perception. They are about protecting their jobs, position and power...especially once they reach the elite positions.

The power players will do anything it takes to stay where they are at...say one thing, do another...lie...whatever it takes. And yes...for those power players, donor money is where it's at. The voters, in comparison, have no money.


lobbying-1-research.jpg
 
Last edited:
Looks like most here agree Washington is nakedly corrupted by big money.
 
Winston said:
On average. I'm sure you can find one here or, one there. But, that would be like one dot, way far away, from a cluster of dots around the "We're bought and paid for" vortex.

That Grassley comment on the "women, booze, and movies" got me thinking how little he represents the voters who voted for him.

What do you think?
Click to expand...

there's an old saying that one doesn't bite the hand that feeds them. Most of our elected officials, at least in Washington get most of their cash from corporations, wall street firms, lobbyist, special interests, mega huge money donors. You can bet they take care of the so called moneyed elite who feeds them. This is usually done behind the scenes by putting in an amendment into a bill to favor those interests or giving them a tax break or something akin to that. Remember, these are smart businessmen, they didn't get to where they are by being dumb. Their donations aren't civic minded. It's more as an investment. An investment that returns more than it costs. If it didn't these smart businessmen wouldn't do it.

That's not the only problem or how our elected officials don't listen to the folks who elect them. Most of our elected officials always follow whichever party line agenda their party puts forth and votes the way of their party. Not the way at times the people of their district or state want them to. So what we have is a double whammy here.

Those who actually vote for these folks, are well down the line when it comes to determining what is done or not done in Washington.
 
Depends on State, most represent their interests with a slight line on what there voters want. Unless you're in California or Massachusetts those States vote in crazy people and they do crazy stuff.
 
radcen said:
Agreed... but that actually #3 reworded.
Click to expand...

I think there's a distinction to be made in that..

Politicians are more willing to betray the interests of the people than betray the interests of their donors.. because then they will shut the money faucet off.

There are crossover issues where the constituency say, opposes Abortion, and their rep can oppose abortion, because the donors have no vested interest in abortion law.

But, as soon as the donors have a vested interest, what is right for the people goes out the window.
 
Perotista said:
there's an old saying that one doesn't bite the hand that feeds them. Most of our elected officials, at least in Washington get most of their cash from corporations, wall street firms, lobbyist, special interests, mega huge money donors. You can bet they take care of the so called moneyed elite who feeds them. This is usually done behind the scenes by putting in an amendment into a bill to favor those interests or giving them a tax break or something akin to that. Remember, these are smart businessmen, they didn't get to where they are by being dumb. Their donations aren't civic minded. It's more as an investment. An investment that returns more than it costs. If it didn't these smart businessmen wouldn't do it.

That's not the only problem or how our elected officials don't listen to the folks who elect them. Most of our elected officials always follow whichever party line agenda their party puts forth and votes the way of their party. Not the way at times the people of their district or state want them to. So what we have is a double whammy here.

Those who actually vote for these folks, are well down the line when it comes to determining what is done or not done in Washington.
Click to expand...

This is why Trump is so dangerous to these Congressmen...especially to the GOP wing.

1. He rallied millions of the actual voters to reject 16 Elite candidates.

2. He rallied millions of the actual voters to reject that money-hungry, crooked Hillary.

3. He is getting thousands of voters in various states to reject their Elite Congressmen.

4. He is shining a spotlight on ALL the Elites in Congress.

5. And, most importantly, his agenda...if it overcomes Congressional Elite opposition...will end a big portion of the money supply that's going to those politicians.
 
Winston said:
I think there's a distinction to be made in that..

Politicians are more willing to betray the interests of the people than betray the interests of their donors.. because then they will shut the money faucet off.

There are crossover issues where the constituency say, opposes Abortion, and their rep can oppose abortion, because the donors have no vested interest in abortion law.

But, as soon as the donors have a vested interest, what is right for the people goes out the window.
Click to expand...
Thing is the people have the ultimate power. When... if... the people ever realize that the dynamic will switch.
 
Always for their donors, Congress is 100% corrupt but it is okay because it is legal corruption and freedom matters more than the integrity of the government.
 
Mycroft said:
This is why Trump is so dangerous to these Congressmen...especially to the GOP wing.

1. He rallied millions of the actual voters to reject 16 Elite candidates.

2. He rallied millions of the actual voters to reject that money-hungry, crooked Hillary.

3. He is getting thousands of voters in various states to reject their Elite Congressmen.

4. He is shining a spotlight on ALL the Elites in Congress.

5. And, most importantly, his agenda...if it overcomes Congressional Elite opposition...will end a big portion of the money supply that's going to those politicians.
Click to expand...

And just replacing them with himself and his own people with the exacts same donors.
 
Carjosse said:
And just replacing them with himself and his own people with the exacts same donors.
Click to expand...

You think?

First of all, who are "his own people"? And, who are they taking money from?

btw, do you think Trump is taking money from the same donors at the Congressional Elites? Who are they? How about the BBB?
 
Mycroft said:
You think?

First of all, who are "his own people"? And, who are they taking money from?

btw, do you think Trump is taking money from the same donors at the Congressional Elites? Who are they? How about the BBB?
Click to expand...

His own people are the ones he approves, I guess replacing is the wrong word, but I guess promoting. The people he supports. Obviously his own businesses are benefiting massively from it especially as seeing he never put it in a blind trust and he got his campaign money from the usual sources, the same ones as the other GOPers usually a lot of energy and finance companies along with a host of others from other companies and wealthy individual donors alike. Trump is even more corrupt, he has his own business interests on top of those of his donors.
 
Technically it depends (particularly on whether or not a bill materially affects any major donors and their interests), but in practice, and when there's a conflict of interest between voters and donors, overwhelmingly they represent the donors.

Per Gilens and Page of Princeton, the US is essentially a de facto plutocracy: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites said:
But the picture changes markedly when all three independent variables are included in the multivariate Model 4 and are tested against each other. The estimated impact of average citizens’ preferences drops precipitously,to a non-significant, near-zero level. Clearly the median citizen or “median voter” at the heart of theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy does not do well when put up against economic elites and organized interest groups. The chief predictions of pure theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy can be decisively rejected. Not only do ordinary citizens not have uniquely substantial power over policy decisions; they have little or no independent influence on policy at all.
Click to expand...

This was true as of 2014; it has surely only gotten worse since then. This is essentially a confirmation of what intellectuals have been saying for decades.

An excellent article on the subject by Michael Brenner, a Professor of International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh: https://www.counterpunch.org/2013/04/01/plutocracy-in-america/

Noam Chomsky also has a great deal to say as to the nature and existence of American plutocracy which spans much of his career.

Not surprisingly the rise of plutocracy in the States appears to be keyed to the increase in campaign spending and overall proliferation of money in politics which took off after Buckley v Valeo 76 when the SCOTUS, in perhaps its most disastrous ruling ever, declared money to be speech, and essentially unlimited political spending to be constitutionally enshrined.

As to the present, you better bet your ass that the GOP is doing the bidding of their corporate/wealthy masters: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...use-republicans-tax-bill-donors-chris-collins
 
Last edited:
Winston said:
Looks like most here agree Washington is nakedly corrupted by big money.
Click to expand...

I thought it was refreshing when Obama called out the GM executives for their overpay and lavishness, when they arrived at the GM bankruptcy hearings in their Corporate jet. During Obama's first term CEO salaries declined sharply, as accountability started to become a factor. But then it was back to the same old wage gap inflation.
 
Media_Truth said:
I thought it was refreshing when Obama called out the GM executives for their overpay and lavishness, when they arrived at the GM bankruptcy hearings in their Corporate jet. During Obama's first term CEO salaries declined sharply, as accountability started to become a factor. But then it was back to the same old wage gap inflation.
Click to expand...

That probably had far more to do with the 2007-8 crisis than Obama which resulted in a substantial albeit shortlived dip in the incomes of top earners across the board.
 
Last edited:
Surrealistik said:
That probably had far more to do with the 2007-8 crisis than Obama which resulted in a substantial albeit shortlived dip in the incomes of top earners across the board.
Click to expand...

I will agree to an extent, but Obama was not the person of choice for CEOs. They hated Dodd-Frank, because it required accountability. The bankers and Corporate officers were given free reign under GW, and that resulted in massive corruption.

As a matter of fact, during Obama's election, I heard somebody mention that over 95% of CEOs voted Republican. Billionaire funded organizations like Donor's Trust, Judicial Watch, the Heritage Foundation, the Heartland Institute and many more are all Conservative.
 
Media_Truth said:
I will agree to an extent, but Obama was not the person of choice for CEOs. They hated Dodd-Frank, because it required accountability. The bankers and Corporate officers were given free reign under GW, and that resulted in massive corruption.

As a matter of fact, during Obama's election, I heard somebody mention that over 95% of CEOs voted Republican. Billionaire funded organizations like Donor's Trust, Judicial Watch, the Heritage Foundation, the Heartland Institute and many more are all Conservative.
Click to expand...

Both sides are bought and swamped with corporation donations and lobbyist money (and payments in kind like PAC and media support), even if the wealthy in balance might lean Republican more, and Republicans serve up more viscerally awful legislation that don't even pretend at being figleafs; Corporate Democrats are the good cop to the Republican bad, but they ultimately both serve the rich and powerful in the end, not the people.
 
Carjosse said:
His own people are the ones he approves, I guess replacing is the wrong word, but I guess promoting. The people he supports. Obviously his own businesses are benefiting massively from it especially as seeing he never put it in a blind trust and he got his campaign money from the usual sources, the same ones as the other GOPers usually a lot of energy and finance companies along with a host of others from other companies and wealthy individual donors alike. Trump is even more corrupt, he has his own business interests on top of those of his donors.
Click to expand...

"the usual sources"

What sources would those be?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom