Money in US politics: a $250 prize
A draft post written for the blog Rational Conspiracy but never published. The premise is a standing bounty: Alyssa offers $250 to anyone who can document a clear, well-traced case where a famously politically active billionaire — the Koch brothers on the right, George Soros on the left — actually moved a major US policy outcome through their spending.
How much influence does money have on politics? It’s very hard to know for sure, but we can at least look at representative examples. Unfortunately, the discussion has been clouded by politics being a mind-killer . People will often support any argument, however bad, that favors their side.
Therefore, I’ve decided to offer a $250 prize to anyone who can provide a clear example of conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch , or liberal billionaire George Soros , having a significant impact on American politics. If anyone wins the prize, they’re welcome to write up an analysis of what the political issue is, the different sides people take, how it’s evolved over time, and how money changed the situation, which I’ll post to Rational Conspiracy. If no one wins the prize… well, that would tell us a lot too. All entries will be added to the bottom of this post.
Rules: Merely giving money to someone — a candidate, think tank, PAC, etc. — does not count. You must also show that the money had a significant impact on policy. For example, I’ve donated to candidate Cory Wolbach because he supports more housing in Palo Alto. But he didn’t take that position because of my (small) donation. Rather, he already had that position to begin with, and that position is why I donated to him.
Merely giving money to someone, who gives money to someone, who supports someone who supports a particular policy especially does not count, because you can use it to prove almost anything. For example, the CEO of Google is Larry Page; Google gave $250,000 to Singularity University; and Singularity University’s VP of Academics sent an email to SU students supporting homeopathy . But, of course, that doesn’t mean Larry Page supports homeopathy. Even organizations you strongly support will rarely agree with you 100% of the time.
The policy in question must be significant — something that impacts thousands of people, or millions of dollars in economic activity.
The impact of money on the policy must be significant. For example, if a bill is being debated in Congress, getting a single representative to change their vote probably doesn’t count. But if it’s a transportation bill, and that representative is the chairman of the Transportation Committee, it definitely counts.
The causal chain between the billionaire’s actions and the policy change need not be 100% certain, but it must be reasonably likely. For example, the day after the 2012 SOPA/PIPA protests , a number of Congressmen said they no longer supported the bill, and the New York Times soon said the legislation had been ‘shelved’. Therefore, it’s reasonably likely that the protests killed SOPA/PIPA. However, merely discussing a bill with a Senator does not count, because (without further detail) it’s impossible to know if the discussion had any impact — maybe they just didn’t listen, or maybe they were supporting the bill anyway.
Anyone claiming the prize is responsible for doing the research to support their example. E.g., you can’t only say that a book by X proves lobbyist Y caused policy Z. You have to make the argument yourself, citing the specific chapters and page numbers that prove your point.
The example must be clear. “ Weasel words ” like ‘studies show’, ‘people say’, ‘I heard that’, ‘it is known that’, etc., and “ biased language ” like ‘extremist’, ‘denialist’, ‘terrorist’, ‘fascist’, ‘communist’, etc., can sound convincing, but don’t genuinely provide rational evidence .
Examples can be submitted as comments, or emailed to alyssamvance@gmail.com; the first person to submit a valid example wins. All examples, valid or not, will be posted here. I’ll also post the winner’s name and website here, unless they elect to remain anonymous. An invalid example may become valid by adding additional evidence; for example, one might say that “studies show” X, and then later provide the details of the studies. If this happens, the example will be considered submitted as soon as the additional evidence is provided, not when it was first sent (without sufficient evidence).
The prize winner may elect to donate the prize to a charity of their choice which aims to reduce existential risk . If they choose to donate, I will double the prize to $500, and my employer will also match the donation, for a total donation of $1,000.