Makes the naive assumption that these are actual “donations” based on “supporting” a candidate. In fact three of the top five donors for Gore were also in the top five for Bush, and wealthy/corporate donors often give to both major party candidates. Sure, they might give more to one side depending on their influence at the time. The politicians also make special efforts to shake down interest groups for “donations” when it is not election season (http://www.amazon.com/Extortion-Politicians-Extract-Money-Pockets/dp/0544103343/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1423164502&sr=8-1&keywords=extortion+politics).
In order for your idea to work, first extreme campaign contribution limits would have to be in place.
I would like to see a candidate donate most of their campaign funds to charity. Support our troops? Fine, show us how much with money from your campaign. Pro-choice? Donate to Planned Parenthood. Care about the environment? You have lots of good options.
Good point, this certainly wouldn’t work for lobbying. But over 50% of donations still come from wealthy individuals or small donations, so it’s a substantial absolute amount of money that still could benefit from moral trade.
In fact three of the top five donors for Gore were also in the top five for Bush, and wealthy/corporate donors often give to both major party candidates.
This is a tangent, but how was it rational for Gore to look favourably on them for their donations?
The point is that they gave large amounts, and gave large amounts to both candidates for President. Logically, they were not giving out of a preference for either candidate to win, but because they expected to profit from it in the future. As altruists we need to avoid the assumption that others who donate to political candidates, as I am sure a number of people in this group do, do so as altruists and not for purely selfish reasons.
I know, but that doesn’t really answer my question—rationally, Gore should have been indifferent between (a) them giving the same amount to him and Bush and (b) nothing to either candidate.
Makes the naive assumption that these are actual “donations” based on “supporting” a candidate. In fact three of the top five donors for Gore were also in the top five for Bush, and wealthy/corporate donors often give to both major party candidates. Sure, they might give more to one side depending on their influence at the time. The politicians also make special efforts to shake down interest groups for “donations” when it is not election season (http://www.amazon.com/Extortion-Politicians-Extract-Money-Pockets/dp/0544103343/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1423164502&sr=8-1&keywords=extortion+politics). In order for your idea to work, first extreme campaign contribution limits would have to be in place. I would like to see a candidate donate most of their campaign funds to charity. Support our troops? Fine, show us how much with money from your campaign. Pro-choice? Donate to Planned Parenthood. Care about the environment? You have lots of good options.
Good point, this certainly wouldn’t work for lobbying. But over 50% of donations still come from wealthy individuals or small donations, so it’s a substantial absolute amount of money that still could benefit from moral trade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States
This is a tangent, but how was it rational for Gore to look favourably on them for their donations?
The point is that they gave large amounts, and gave large amounts to both candidates for President. Logically, they were not giving out of a preference for either candidate to win, but because they expected to profit from it in the future. As altruists we need to avoid the assumption that others who donate to political candidates, as I am sure a number of people in this group do, do so as altruists and not for purely selfish reasons.
I know, but that doesn’t really answer my question—rationally, Gore should have been indifferent between (a) them giving the same amount to him and Bush and (b) nothing to either candidate.