Do you really believe that? I work at one of the largest employers in my congressional district - 10,000+ people. Our congressman in at the office a couple times each year. During election season he stands out in front and shakes hands with everyone - as do his competitors. During the rest of the year he fights really hard for things that would help us (a defense contractor) even if they would conflict with his national party position.
That isn't praise, I personally don't like the guy's politics much. But clearly he pays attention to the needs of the large employers in his district. I think it's on target to point out that many of the large employers in her district oppose SOPA. That probably does have some influence on her stance.
Me personally? No, not entirely. But I would observe your anecdote illustrates exactly what people see to be the problem. At first blush you might think, "What is good for your employer must be good for you!", but really that's not the case. I'm sure if you sit down and think about it, you'll see why. I'm sure you can think of countless ways a law could be good for business but really bad for employees.
It is true laws that are good for your employer can be good for you, because you of course have a vested interest in your employer. But I think many people feel it should be the other way- i.e. representatives shouldn't be looking out for business and hoping to cover the voters, they should be looking out for the voters, who will do the worrying about their employers. The way you illustrate, the power dynamic is in favor of business. Some crazy people feel it should be in favor of voters.
I'm not sure if you misread the parent comment, but he pretty much spelled it out: the 10,000+ employees who work for the contractor ARE his constituents and thus have a vested interest in the business' interests...
But that only work when their constituents are insuffiently motivated to actively target them to remove them from power.
Members are quite vulnerable to losing their party nomination as it takes less votes than at an election. That was how the tea party got members elected (although usually that wasn't against sitting members)
Presumably they have figured out that acting in the interests of your constituents and getting re-elected are not mutually inclusive. Voting to please your party instead of your citizens gets you full party support, and as far as beating the other guy, it has been shown that campaign funding has an unsettlingly strong correlation to campaign victories.
Making matters worse, voters tend to want conflicting things. For example, in general they want more government programs and also lower taxes.
Making matters even more difficult, what voters say they want and what they actually want can be different stories. Schwarzenegger got elected on the premise that he was going to do certain things. He tried to do those things. He was shut down by everyone- including directly by the voters.
> it has been shown that campaign funding has an unsettlingly strong correlation to campaign victories.
Do you have a citation on this? I recently read Freakonomics where the authors claimed to be able to prove this theory false, but I didn't look up their numbers.
From a few years living in DC, congressmen and Senators care about three things: Money, publicity and votes.
The first two deliver the third.
Pork (bits added to bill that affect something in their electorate) affects the second and third, and was probably delivered as the result of a contribution from a lobbyist who was retained by a corporate.
I cannot recommend Larry Lessig's latest book enough to US voters.
