Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

There's nothing corrupt about it. The voting citizens of Michigan like the auto industry the way it is and they have an understandable fear of disruptive new technologies. It makes good sense that someone representing a state known for producing automobiles would accept campaign contributions from automobile manufacturers. Many of the people he represents are employed by those companies in some way and it's his job to advocate for their interests and work with their lobbyists. It's good that a senator's campaign is funded by the businesses from his or her state, as opposed to being funded by organizations that have nothing to do with the concerns of the state's citizens. The people and their representatives are on the same team.

Representative democracies work the same in the US, the Netherlands and all over. If a majority of the people of Michigan were vocally demanding Tesla dealerships, they would get them. That might be the case in a few years, but all we can do now is let the system work. There's a midterm election coming up soon and all of the Michiganders on hn can vote and convince others to vote for Tesla, but change may take time.



>It makes good sense that someone representing a state known for producing automobiles would accept campaign contributions from automobile manufacturers

I, for one, agree with you wholeheartedly. This is politics in action. Just because you don't particularly agree with a decision doesn't mean it isn't working as intended.

When subjects like this are broached on this forum, we hear about lobbying and corruption, as if companies like Tesla-- who direct tax credits to rich people and play states off other for employment-- are above this. The tech industry in general is a huge lobby.


This is exactly democracy, warts and all. The crowd wants something, and they're gonna get it, good and hard.


> It makes good sense that someone representing a state known for producing automobiles would accept campaign contributions from automobile manufacturers.

Except, you know, that the contributions weren't from automobile manufacturers, but from the dealerships, whose interests are in conflict with the manufacturers (the more one party earns, the less there is for the other).


Do these donors represent the interests of the corporations or the citizens?


The two are not necessarily opposed


If A and B agree on 99% of issues then awesome. But, siding with A means that for the other 1% your choosing A over B.


They represent the corporations but in the case of an autodealer association they are probably claiming to represent their employees. Think of them similar to a union except they are lobbying legislators instead of corporations.


Automotive dealerships are not at all like a union. There's a critical distinction here between labor and capital.


I never said auto dealerships but the autodealer associations in each state. The associations are the ones that are doing the lobbying on behalf of dealers. IIRC Ford tried to do direct sales to customers in the 90s maybe? The Ford dealers lobbied and shut Ford out.


No, representative democracies do not work the same all over. Some have a 98% reelection rate, but not all.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: