I am a long time reader of DK. I haven’t posted much or commented often over the years. I love Bernie. I respect Hillary.
Let’s understand that even good people, well intentioned with noble goals, are influenced by gifts. It’s a human thing. None of us is immune to it.
Max Nisen from Business Insider writes about the influence of gifts on the receiver: Link to article here . Excerpt here:
It turns out that even when people are well aware that a gift is meant to influence them, there is still a powerful trigger to give something back through future behavior or preference.
He cites the original work here:
Original article link
"In a series of experiments, we show that, even without incentive or informational effects, small gifts strongly influence the recipient’s behavior in favor of the gift giver, in particular when a third party bears the cost. Subjects are well aware that the gift is given to influence their behavior but reciprocate nevertheless.
... a gift triggers an obligation to repay the gift, independently of the intentions of the gift giver and the distributional consequences. The gift seems to create a special bond between the giver and the recipient, in line with a large anthropological literature documenting that gifts create obligations. Similarly, sociologists argue that many forms of social exchange are based on a universal social norm that gifts have to be reciprocated."
He continues:
The relative size, intent, and context of the gift doesn't matter all that much. This is a problem for governments and businesses seeking to reduce outside influence and conflicts of interest. Disclosure rules and size limits don't make much of a difference.
When trying to make an impartial decision between to alternatives, it's important to be aware of this effect. Everyday social interactions have all sorts of small gifts, a meal, a drink, and so on. Whether we're aware of it or not, we tend to pay back those small gifts in the future.
Even the practice of giving pens or notepads to doctors with pharmaceutical branding on them has been shown to influence doctors’ prescribing habits. Pharma gift bans for budding doctors have long-term impact
On the issue of accepting campaign donations or speaking fees, I have heard Hillary make a couple of points:
1) “Everyone does it. It is the common practice.” Sadly, this is true, but rather than justifying the behavior, it actually underscores how big of a problem this really is.
2) “I have never been influenced by these contributions or speaking fees.” I believe Hillary believes she hasn’t been influenced, but the evidence shows that all of us are highly influenced by gifts whether we recognize it or not.
3) “I’m being singled out.” This is a variation of the “Everyone does it.” defense. You can’t be singled out if you aren’t guilty.
Regarding campaign donations, I imagine Hillary thinks, “Do you expect me to unilaterally disarm? How can I compete with Republicans without the financial resources?” This is a legitimate point. She wanted to win. She needed money to win. Use the conventional playbook and all the advantages available to you. Bernie has shown that there is another way that doesn’t carry the negatives of accepting large donations. It is a good thing for Bernie to be influenced by his donors. Although I understand why Hillary made the choice to run as she did, it is time for her to disavow future large contributions and speaking fees.
Isn’t it time that our elected officials acknowledge that no matter how good their intentions, they are not immune to the influence of gifts? Lets keep up the pressure to reform this corrupt way of conducting our nation’s business.
