User:Tom.wiki497/sandbox

Fetcher Bill

A “fetcher bill” is a legislative bill introduced with the specific purpose of stimulating payments from groups that would be negatively impacted by its enactment. It is a legislative tactic of extortion. The extent of its use is debated. Alternative names include "juicer bills" and "milker bills".

Fetcher bills are a tactic for what many have describes as the "demand side of lobbying". This is to be distinguished from the "supply side of lobbying" which includes bribery and regulatory capture. Politicians may target fetcher bills at specific individuals, industries, services, interest groups, or economic classes. In theory, threatened groups will be willing to pay off politicians if the asking price is lower than the expected cost of the bill passing.

Usage

It is inherently difficult to measure the extent of fetcher bills in politics. To do so definitively would require an objective understanding of politicians’ motives, which they are often incentivized to hide or distort. Compounding that difficulty is the problem of interpretation. To an outside observer, the same payment can be considered a genuine contribution, a bribe, or means to prevent a fetcher bill from passing.

Due to these measurement issues, the prevalence of fetcher bills is debated. Some scholars believe policy agendas are largely determined based on this practice. Others believe it is more of a background issue.

In his book Money for Nothing, Fred McChesney outlines the incentives for politicians to use fetcher bills. He says they are more efficient than "passively" waiting for campaign contributions. As the title of his book suggest, they receive money in exchange for nothing. This has the added benefit that the same fetcher bill can be reintroduced year after year. He believes politicians use a combination of extortion, via the use of fetcher bills, and bribery.

The use of fetcher bills has been associated with a number of consequences:

1. Changes in investment: Private investment will favor industries and services less prone to fetcher bills. Investments in the underground economy, for example, are less likely to be targeted by fetcher bills.
2. Hiding wealth: An incentive emerges to hide wealth by money-laundering or other means. Politicians cannot target money unless they know it's there.
3. Legislative Inefficiency: The efficiency of legislation decreases. Politicians must follow through with standard practices of holding meetings, hearings, and debates to make the fetcher bill appear credible. This results in less time and resources for proper forms of legislation.

The efficacy of fetcher bills relies on certain contributing factors:

1. Access to information: Better access to public information will enhance the efficacy of fetcher bill tactics. With a better understanding of the people behind specific interest groups, politicians can tailor the content and timing of their bill to maximize results.
2. Likelihood of punishment: Fetcher bills will be more effective when punishment is unlikely. Threatened interests will be more likely to pay if an alternative does not exist. Likewise, politicians will have more incentive to use this tactic in the first place.
3. Credibility of threat: Less credible threats will not be as effective at extracting payments. Credibility may result from any number of factors.

Examples

Below are a few examples where the term has been used to describe legislative activity. It is worth reiterating that these cases are open to interpretation.

In what Peter Schweizer dubbed a "double-milker" bill, Barack Obama introduced two bills in 2011 that would either tighten or loosen control over internet piracy. Schweizer claims this was an attempt to extract competing payments from interests in Silicon Valley and Hollywood. He cites a increase in campaign contributions from both groups leading into the 2012 presidential election. Neither bill became law.

Tax reform is frequently accused of using fetcher bill tactics. As economist Fred McChesney put it, "with every proposed change, somebody's ox will be gored, and so somebody's wallet will be open." He cites Ronald Reagan's presidency, during which tax reform reappeared many times. Tax extenders and other bills that have planned expirations have been accused of fetcher bill tactics.

A threatened price control on cable television by the 1992 United States Congress has been accused of intentionally eliciting campaign contributions from the cable industry.

See also

Lobbying

bribery

tax reform

extortion

regulation

regulatory capture

Special Interest Groups

Article Evaluation

Title of Wiki Article: National Rifle Association

In the Political Activity section, while interpreting the heavy funding by the NRA for both Democratic and Republican parties, the article offers the quote "it is important to note that these contributions are probably a better measure of allegiance than of influence." I would argue that this single interpretation is controversial. My suggestion would be to include competing interpretations of these funds, or to delete the one they have.

In the Programs section, the article mentions Bass Pro Shops and the large variety of guns it offers for sale. This feels unimportant and is perhaps only there as an advertisement.

In the Finances section, there are conflicting facts stated regarding the NRA's streams of revenue (regarding membership fees). These facts should be attributed to their respective sources to avoid confusion.

Sources: I've been unable to find any sourcing issues.

Neutrality: In my opinion, the article reads very pro-NRA. The sections outlining the NRA's leadership, training, safety programs are far more detailed than the sections explaining criticisms of the NRA. For example, the article notes Chris Christie's disapproval of the NRA's video response to the Sandy Hook shooting. The article makes no reference to what was said in this video and effectively disarms the criticism by vaguely attributing it to the disapproval of a single person.

Rating: The article is noted as being 'controversial' and 'in dispute'. A note from wikipedia says "The arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users [posting on this type of material]". I wonder, how does wikipedia determine how 'involved' their administrators are? I never thought about what goes into publishing these Wikipedia articles. I imagine there are many controversial pages that have entire sections missing because editors have not reached consensus.

Wikiprojects: The NRA page is "of interest to" the following wikiprojects: Firearms, Virginia, United States, Organizations, Conservatism, Politics/American, Libertarianism.

Talk page: There is a conversation about the NRA's history with regards to black gun owners. Someone posted a 'request for comment' saying the NRA has a history of defending white gun owners but not black gun owners. The request has not been approved. There are some 30 comments responding, both in support and opposition. Much of the opposition says the comment is far too long and would take up 'undue' space. One opposer said giving so much attention to this 'minor' issue would drown out more 'substantial' criticism of the NRA. Comments in support of the issue argue the topic should not be ignored given the overall length of the NRA page. I'm starting to see how complex the wikipedia editing process is.

There is another section discussing whether the page is biased in favor of the NRA.

Compared to class: This article's discussion of the NRA differ's from our class discussion in that it emphasizes the history of the organization over it's current political impact. Our discussion in class was almost entirely anti-NRA, while this article includes the various pro-NRA opinions. It's valuable to see what the NRA claims to be, even if I disagree with it.

Potential Topics

Topic 1: History of lobbying in the United States

No mention of the United Fruit Company. This is a major case of lobbying in US history and is worthy of coverage. Specifically the ties between UFCO management and Eisenhower, how it altered U.S. foreign policy, and the resulting impact in various Latin American countries.

Topic 2: Product placement

There is no section dedicated to product placement by government officials. The topic is murky and controversial, but there are some examples of this. Some examples seem more harmless than others. Does the politician need to profit from the 'plug' for it to be considered a corrupt act? How do we categorize this?

Examples include:

[person] -- [brand]

Ivanka Trump -- Nordstrom

Donald Trump -- Mar-a-Lago, Trump wine, Fox & Friends, ...

Louise Linton -- Tom Ford

Barack Obama -- Blackberry

Topic 3: Organic certification

Specifically, the section called "Manipulative use of regulations" needs more examples. They only mention one example and it's limited in scope.

Example: Aurora Organic Dairy scandal

It is exploiting power for private gain. In this case, the power lies in the 'certifier'. I remember a friend in Costa Rica complaining to me that specific chemical suppliers, through bribery, could influence public officials to arbitrarily add their product to the list of 'allowed substances'. I'm now having trouble finding evidence to support that, but I will continue to look.

Topic 4: Fair trade debate

This is similar to the idea above. The "Corruption" section lists the ways Fair Trade certification can be corrupt without citing any examples.

Topic 5: 2017–18 NCAA Division I men's basketball corruption scandal

This is a developing story and will need many updates in the coming month.