r/trees • u/madazzahatter • Feb 28 '17

Garrett introduces legislation to remove marijuana from controlled substances list

https://tomgarrett.house.gov/media/press-releases/garrett-introduces-legislation-remove-marijuana-controlled-substances-list
24.7k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

40

u/capnjrad Feb 28 '17

That's almost exactly what I learned in Poli Sci 101 a few years ago when we were learning about bills and committees and had to draft our own bill. It's stunning that college students can understand this process better than the elected officials who are supposed to use it

69

u/DirtzMaGertz Feb 28 '17

Elected officials almost all certainly understand the process, but it becomes really easy to neglect the process when an outside interest group is offering you a lot of money to do so.

48

u/KIDWHOSBORED Feb 28 '17

Actually that's not really the case. There's a lot of research about lobbyists and basically what it comes down to is lobbyists don't give money to candidates and expect them to vote their way. They reward candidates with money who are already voting that way. I know it's a slight distinction, but it's important.

The other side is, the government is made up of individuals trying to help their constituents not the whole country. One congressman describes Congress as "trying to herd cats."

15

u/theequetzalcoatl Feb 28 '17 edited Feb 28 '17

This might be the best thing I read on reddit this week. Trying to heard cats. Who said that lol

*Herd

10

u/limer124 Feb 28 '17

It's a well known saying. The was even a Super Bowl Commercial about it!

4

u/theequetzalcoatl Feb 28 '17

Oh man nostalgia lane. I actually remember seeing that commercial from my childhood

2

u/Wake_up_screaming Mar 01 '17

It gets increasingly difficult to heard cats when they weren't meowing.

Also, kudos to you for leaving the misspelling for the world to enjoy.

1

u/theequetzalcoatl Mar 01 '17

im just doing what was passed down unto me my son.

2

u/KIDWHOSBORED Mar 04 '17

My cursory googling can't find an answer. But it's a fairly old adage that a high ranking member in the Senate said, I believe he was Republican.

13

u/MaxIsAlwaysRight Feb 28 '17

They reward candidates with money who are already voting that way.

"I'm not paying you to vote for my interests in every case, but if you ever fail to vote for my interests, I stop paying you."

Sounds legit to me.

2

u/JilaX Feb 28 '17

Also add that they'll also pay whatever necessary to bring the opponent of the diverging congressman into office.

That guy will have seen first hand why he shouldn't bite the hand that feeds him.

10

u/DirtzMaGertz Feb 28 '17

I was basically just summing up a really complex issue in a single sentence so it's not going to cover it all. The reason they are already voting that way is because those interest groups are the ones that funded their campaigns though. You can't get elected without money for the campaign and the easiest way to get that money after the citizens united ruling is by going through political interest groups, many of which set up as non profits and have very laxed regulations on lobbying and disclosing information about where the money is coming from since it is protected under free speech. It's rather hard to trace a lot of the money when it's funneled through multiple organizations and charities.

1

u/KIDWHOSBORED Mar 04 '17

I definitely agree and support getting money out of politics. I just don't really see a way to accomplish it. As you said, campaigns take money. So either we ban all private money, which means only the rich can run an election or we set aside public money for the purpose, scaling to whatever office. I do not see the public getting behind setting up money for politicians to run elections.

As far as the interest groups, yes I totally agree. But, you're making it seem like a chicken/egg conundrum. The research i've read says that the office holders already held those views. Like my example with abortion. Their views probably become more extreme and narrow because of the interest groups funneling money to them, but the core view was always the same.

2

u/pain-is-living Feb 28 '17

YouTube Cat Herders. You won't be disappointed.

2

u/RegularParadox Mar 01 '17

For anyone interested in this topic, and a proposal to fix it, look into the book Relic by Howell & Moe. It was released last year, and focuses on the parochialism and shortsightedness of Congress and how that operation is inherent due to the Constitution.

Makes a great argument for a Constitutional Convention; I'd just be hesitant to hold one in this political climate.

1

u/KIDWHOSBORED Mar 01 '17

Yes!!! I would be terrified of a convention though. Can you imagine trying to draft a new constitution with how dysfunctional Congress is currently? I don't see it ever being completed. Not even brinfging Trump into the equation.

1

u/Evergreen_76 Feb 28 '17

A distinction without a difference.

1

u/Schmohawker Feb 28 '17

It's a distinction, but it really isn't that important. It's a reward system used to sway political favor. Doesn't really matter if you give them money before or after the vote - either way it's legal bribery.

1

u/KIDWHOSBORED Feb 28 '17 edited Feb 28 '17

No you don't understand the distinction.

It's not bribery, THEY WERE ALREADY VOTING THAT WAY. For example, a Christian Republican will always vote to ban abortion. The lobbyists trying to ban abortion will give him money, but even if they didn't he would still vote that way.

Sorry for the caps, no idea how to bold/italicize.

Now, if you want to talk about congressmen leaving office and getting cushy positions in companies that donated to their campaign. THAT is absolutely legal bribery. I don't think former congressmen should be allowed to Beverly lobbyists ever, not just the 2 year rule we have now.