I think the donations part of it isn’t even that important.
If you think about how legislation does (and can) work, lawmakers, even if they were the most gifted people on the planet, obviously are not experts on everything. As a result they have to rely on others.
But who should those others be? When it comes to something like chip manufacturing, you’re down to essentially 1 major U.S. company in this area that can provide guidance.
One could argue they could go to academics, but a single academic is good for going deep into a specific area and not so good at cross concerns.
And bringing together all those people is effort.
On the other hand you have Intel that’s got scores of researchers, marketing experts, and lobbyists who are basically giving you high quality data and information for free.
Even without money and therefore outright corruption playing any role, companies like these have an outsized influence on lawmakers for absolutely practical reasons.
Yes, while political donations in general are a concern to me, I think in this case the donations themselves are fairly innocuous. What the donations tell me is not that Intel bribed these representatives, it's that Intel identified these representatives as ones that would be particularly pliable to their legal persuasion efforts.
It's true that Intel has a lot of natural strengths for its lobbying efforts, but some representatives are going to be easier to persuade than others.
I think you'd be pressed to find a representative who didn't receive donations from Intel. Why would they gamble and guess on which ones will win next election or which ones will help them push their agenda?
If you think about how legislation does (and can) work, lawmakers, even if they were the most gifted people on the planet, obviously are not experts on everything. As a result they have to rely on others.
But who should those others be? When it comes to something like chip manufacturing, you’re down to essentially 1 major U.S. company in this area that can provide guidance.
One could argue they could go to academics, but a single academic is good for going deep into a specific area and not so good at cross concerns.
And bringing together all those people is effort.
On the other hand you have Intel that’s got scores of researchers, marketing experts, and lobbyists who are basically giving you high quality data and information for free.
Even without money and therefore outright corruption playing any role, companies like these have an outsized influence on lawmakers for absolutely practical reasons.