Democratic National Committee "quietly" bans fossil fuel company contributions

35757893_1864048436993414_363820546430861312_o So says Brian, and he's probably right. About the ban. But is it a good idea? Let's read some words:

The energy and natural resource sectors, including fossil fuel producers and mining firms, gave $2.6 million to the DNC in 2016, according to data collected by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. That’s a pittance compared to the $56.1 million that came from the finance and real estate sectors, the DNC’s largest corporate donors that year...

I can see two possibilities:

1. Selfless corporations routinely donate money to incorruptible politicians because they value a vibrant political process.
2. Self-interested corporations routinely donate money to corruptible (or do I mean "influencable" - would that be more polite?) politicians because they expect results favourable to themselves.

Those are perhaps the extremes; there are shades between. But the answer is of course 2. So the Dems are effectively saying that they don't want to be bought influenced by Evil Oil Companies but are entirely happy to be bought influenced by Evil Finance and Evil Real Estate companies. Or perhaps they think those sectors are paragons of virtue? That would be odd.

Actually, having pols bought influenced by corps isn't entirely a bad idea. Pols need to have ideas of their own, and they need to be in touch with the ideas of the country, which includes the electorate but also includes the money. Being bought by the money, in moderation, is part of that. Of course, if they're so bought that they'll do nothing but, then you have a problem.

But are the Dems so bought by Evil Oil Companies that they'll do nothing but their bidding? That seems unlikely. Are the Dems under the impression that fossil fuels could be erased tomorrow and everything would go well? I doubt even they are that stupid. So this appears to be a way for the Dems to tell the Evil Oil Companies to fuck off and go talk to the Repubs instead, which I'm sure they will. Perhaps the Dems also believe that Evil Real Estate companies are universally a force for good, in which case they are fools; apart from anything else they're lobbying for all that stupid fedreral flood insurance.

The real problem, as I've said before, is the USAnian eleectorate and it's dumb ideas. Actually, there's a bit more to it than that but now is not the time for subtlety.


Compulsive Reader by Pablo Gallo: TF.


Andy Mitchell said...

Perhaps its to do with the perception that being linked to the oil companies will increasingly be an electoral liability as climate change becomes a more pressing problem.

William Connolley said...

It might be, but in that case would you expect them to do it noisily, rather than quietly?

Andy Mitchell said...

I suppose that depends on whether "we did before" is more important than "we don't any more".

Russell Seitz said...

How much green did they take last year from the carbon offset buying classes?

Producing television both public and didactic is an expensive business, and littleis paid for by the Kochs-- in the generation Turner's network has been at work, few have accused Captain Planet of being a Republican.

Anonymous said...

"The real problem, as I've said before, is the USAnian eleectorate and it's dumb ideas."

When discussing the intelligence of an electorate (especially one not your own), it's generally good practice to run your posts through a spell checker, and to know the difference between "it's" and "its".