tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post4626461293129388892..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: More About Money In PoliticsJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-18021594009538349102010-10-21T07:36:22.069-05:002010-10-21T07:36:22.069-05:00Yes, you're going to get some error if you do ...Yes, you're going to get some error if you do that. But I bet you know more than if you just look at their PAC; there's more signal than noise.Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-14265195047803709822010-10-21T00:45:08.416-05:002010-10-21T00:45:08.416-05:00I disagree about the Open Secrets methodology. The...I disagree about the Open Secrets methodology. They are inspired by the true stories of CEOs, their spouses, and their children all giving the maximum on the same day. It happens. It's clearly best thought of as money from an interest. And it's really pretty rare.<br /><br />Open Secrets counts contributions from the cashier at your local Texaco as a contribution from the oil industry, if it's over $250 and the guy says he works for Texaco. I don't have a problem identifying the interests of CEOs or VPs as solely those of their companies, mostly because that's kinda likely to be true and because there simply aren't a lot of them. But, Open Secrets treats everyone who identifies as an employer as part of that industry (at least, as near as I can tell, that's their methodology). And that is a really shoddy measurement.Matt Jarvisnoreply@blogger.com