Mr no-tie wins.. While Mr Tie was talking about the "idea" of how interest groups should function. Mr no-tie was talking more about the way interest groups work today. I rule in favour of Mr no-tie. "Certain" Interest groups are too powerful and should be regulated in such a way to preserve the plurality of the endeavour for the American people. Congress should not be encouraged to follow the money Court adjourned
Seems pretty clear the Craig and the writers lean in that direction too, but this is an American show, and in America truth is determined by democracy instead of through fact. So they have to pretend it's an equal battle to avoid the shitstorm that would ensue if they made it explicit that only one side makes any sense.
+Chike Ezebilo It's not the system necessarily that is broken, but the way we implement it and the way we allow it to be regulated and controlled. There are plenty of other systems that ARE fundamentally horribly broken, but this isn't necessarily one of them. Just....currently horribly abused and exploited. Like the poor!
Armendicus While that's also true, the topic was America, not the rest of the world :P The problem with any system is the risk of corruption and inequality. Communism can turn into the state stealing from the entire population and redistributing the entire wealth of the nation to the politicians, and capitalism can lead to the rich holding down the poor by using their excessive capital to shape the nation into favouring the rich, leaving the poor to fend for themselves (as many times seems the case with the US). And a corrupt socialist state could swing either way I guess - into a capitalist nation where the rich get richer while the poor get poorer - or into a communist nation where the state owns more and more and all the profit goes to the politicians.
Dear crash course , I absolutely love love love Craig doing these videos, I wish he could do more :). It helps me study and he's a very funny guy. Please let him know I think he's magnificent .
+Ashton “Nauct” Simmons It is not. If the interest groups are only allowed to suggest bills, not buy them. It is true though, that both the congressmen and interest group know what the donation means.
+Jeroen Bollen it's only because "bribery" has a specific legal definition that this doesn't fall into. To most people, the energy industry giving thousands of dollars annually in donations to the chairman of the Senate committee on the environment (who just so happens to constantly try and spread denialism of global warming) is effectively bribery.
Krombopulos Michael Well that'd mean you are making donations illegal. That'd be fine, but calling that bribary would be confusing. You'd be banning donations to prevent bribary.
Craig, I gotta say you've done a fantastic job at keeping these videos engaging. More so than many of the other crash course hosts (all very helpful, some less engaging) and are on par with the Green brothers!
Probably one of the best crash course videos I've seen to date. Great introduction, solid material, good recap with conclusion, but I also liked the clone zone, I don't think I've seen you use it before but its great to hear both sides of the argument leaving the viewer to make up their own mind. Solid stuff, keep it up! :)
forced to watch these to help me in one of my courses. I personally think this guy is hilarious. Wish my professor was this entertaining to learn from.
Health insurance companies wrote the "affordable" care act. "We have to pass the bill to see what's in it." - Nancy Pelosi Insurance premiums are up 400% 📈
Inorganic Vegan My insurance premium is up 400% and many of my friends are as well. My wife and I are healthy and in our mid 30s we used to pay $200/mo now we pay $400/mo after a $400 tax credit so the real premium on that policy is $800/mo. I speak out of experience!
the affordable care act, wasn't it super similar to Nixon's health care plan? it is a system made to benefit the special interest groups under the guise of healthcare for all. only good part is pre existing conditions being un able to prevent you from getting insurance. reading peoples definition of socialism being state controled everything is silly. actual socialists threw out that definition decades ago. now it is about workers having a say in where the companies surplus goes and what sort of choicws are made. sorta a reboot of workers co-ops. Laborers take the materials and add value to it, so why should owners get all the profit? a new way of looking at economics. what will we do when few humans need to work, the next level of automation? allow everyone with no job prospects to starve? have them be slaves or serfs to the company owners? around 38% of jobs are transportation based. Self driving vehicles will throw them all out and more. think of people who carry boxes and such in warehouses. Think Ups, usps, or amazon. Small program able mini vehicles could take all the jobs as well, easily. this is why we need to establish healthcare and education as human rights in our country. or they will be impossible to reach in the future around the corner. our president says we can't start over with a new health care system to sanders... well, with such a crooked system that caters to providers instead of patients... ni amount of changes will help. it needs scraped. we have a system that doesn't work to prevent illnesses, but works to profit when someone is sick. more preventive care and biyearly appointments and regular tests, would save millions in procedural and surgery costs. but guess where insurance companies, hospitalsand drug companies make their money? when people get sick passed the point of curing, and big money in surgeries. needs a reboot.
I think the best way to counter super PACs is to limit campaign contributions. The best way to counter interest groups would be to increase funding for government information, so candidates don't have to rely on them for information. Also, I think that interest groups should not be allowed to directly influence government.
+Ko Gyi "directly influence" is pretty vague. Also, another alternative to limiting campaign funding is have campaigns be mostly funded by tax dollars. That's how we do it in Belgium, and it gives even smaller parties a chance to make it.
+Ko Gyi If I remember correctly, PAC's actually can't give money to politicians. They can't "coordinate" with politicians at all. In theory, they're independent, and advocate for certain policies and the politicians who support those policies. In practice, they're often formed to support one candidate by doing things that don't require direct interaction with the candidate, like running ads for them. So they use their money for the politician's good without giving it to the politician. Politicians often support these groups' efforts without actually "coordinating" with the PAC. Instead, using Ted Cruz as a real-life example, they'll publish raw footage that would make great campaign ads to a public site like TH-cam where the PAC's can access and use it, but Ted Cruz didn't specifically give it to them so it's not coordination. Basically, PAC's are a loophole to an existing limit on campaign contributions.
+Ko Gyi The problem is that participation in deed is a big part of democracy. Writing letters to your representative and meet him to discuss and suggest policies.... The problem now is that there is no real balance and often there is no organization to counter a special interest. Like most people don't care and about the details of how certain company equities are taxed and sold unless you are such a company. So they are the only ones having a say in the law or regulation and therefore they will make it in a way that profits them. The "general public" would have an interest but can't actually make a common formulation of what is there interest.
Perhaps we could limit contributions on a per-group basis. Ex: no more than ten or twenty percent of a campaign's funding can come from a particular interest group or super pac.
I always thought that was a type-o. I've never know anyone named Craig. Well Greg Lee from back in school kept saying his name was Craig, but I always thought he was joking.
CrashCourse are a life saver. Studying US politics as a student in the UK is difficult enough already with how foreign the system is to ours but these videos are getting me my A grades :)
+Jace Beckham We aren't a democracy, but a constitutional Republic. You don't have to be rich to influence Congress. People join interest groups, aggregating what resources they have, to stand up for their interests. You don't have to be wealthy to affect political change; you only need to stand up and do something. Interest groups are simply free people standing up and doing something.
Thank you for recognizing the importance of this topic. It helps to cancel out some of your neutrality bias when you point out the wealthy have more power in this rigged system.
'neutrality bias'. I've never heard that phrase before, but it's really good. It perfectly sums up a lot of things like TestTube, and this (before this video where they seem to have caved into pressure and just told the truth).
+TheJ33s3 Your logic. Have you seen countries run by rich guys? No, you haven't because then you'd know why those countries suck. Just because your country is wealthy doesn't immediately mean it's the result of the actions of the ruling class. Countries run by free thinking intellectuals who care enough about practical fairness hardly suck, Africa is in disorder because it had the potential for accumulating great wealth, so guess what? Various civil wars run rampant because each faction is too busy trying capitalize on Africa's natural resources for themselves instead of cooperating and working together and mutually benefiting. America's foundational democracy was meant to curb any potential power bias to govern effectively, so there is obviously a problem when the power elite becomes a reality and the corporations have more power over the government than the government over corporations.
@@Jackboy019 The Founding Fathers all had lots of lands, banks, and even slaves, while over 90% of Americans lived on as modest farmers. Much of American history was predominated by the WASP elite. And yet the economy grew the fastest in that period, and lots of people made lots of money, while the government was small. Also, our tax rates are progressive, and we have plenty of programs for the poor. If only the rich had their say, we wouldn't have any of that.
Even if these Congresspersons are not directly favoring the wealthy over the poor, those who can pay for access to these politicians carry the voices said politicians are hearing most often. The more you're exposed to something, the more familiar - and comfortable - one becomes with it. And so the question becomes whether this coziness impacts the objectivity of OUR politicians.
What exactly happens to all those lobbying dollars? Is it just spent on campaign advertising which seems rather harmless, or are politicians actually pocketing it somehow
how is it legal for a political representative to accept money or other similar things from a corporation or company? isnt that obvious conflict of interest
+lukassnakeman not really...the money is used for campaigning, party politics, and ideological issues, pro/con, not for personal use, rather for the political system. its necessary to have funding if you want to run for office. if interest groups agree with your platform theyll support you, if they dont, theyll oppose you through another candidate. its almost like starting a business, you have to prove your viability, the ability to get elected on your platform, to gain funding support.
***** what about the case of climate change, which is real. its in coal and oil companies best interest for people to use their product and not be regulated on how much carbon they put in the atmosphere. but it's in the publics best interest to have breathable air, hospitable climate, and some nature to enjoy. consistently the politicians who accept money from fossil fuel corporations vote against measures that are in the publics best interest and favor policies for their donors who are motivated by greed
well, climate change is a complex issue in america, and all i have to tell you about it is follow the money...america is a resource rich country who founded the use of gasoline, understandably there are deep interests in the industry who want to prevent alternative...solar, wind, and even nuclear...and so this debate of competing interests is masked as climate change, that is not to say that climate change is not real, its just how it applies practically...plus we all want cheap energy, which fossil fuels relatively are...so there are real rational reasons why some, if not many, americans dont believe in climate change, because it hits at their pocket book....make renewable energy more competitive than fossil fuels and a "job creator," and theyll, americans, be singing a different tune...
We no longer have a democracy, at least not at the federal level, due primarily to money in politics. Money in politics has destroyed our democracy. Look at the study called, "Testing Theories of American Politics:Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page (Princeton University). They analyzed 1799 policy proposals from 1979 to 2002 and found that public opinion had ZERO influence on public policy, but interest group goals had 95% correlation with the bills proposed. We need to get money out of politics so our representatives can represent the people instead of corporations and rich donors.
I am not sure I completely agree with the no tie clone. Interest groups like Unions survive, not on large donations, but rather on small membership dues. When you pay your membership dues, you are allowing the Union to provide the large voice on your behalf. Unions are still outspending Super PACs.
Thanks for making this video I was confused about Interest Groups and whether they are good or bad but this video helped me learn and decide for myself.
Bingo! The rich, as a group, has more power than the poor to influence the American political system. That's why about 400 rich people who earn about $200 million a year pays only about 20% in taxes.
You were right!.... But also wrong, I hadn't seen a Crash Course Video for a while so when you, Craig, appeared I was disappointed, but it was well put together video and by the end i could say "this video will not disappoint you" was very accurate.
Thank u so much. These little mini videos help tremendously! Defiantly put me in the right direction so that I knew what to google for my Government Paper, thanks sooo much!!
Interest groups do, in fact, exert a great deal of pressure on the courts, though not specifically the Supreme Court...also, not to the same degree that they do on Congress. They file lawsuits for bills that are antithetical to their interests all the time. They choose cases with sets of facts favorable to them, and engage in "forum shopping" to find a court willing to hear the case, hopefully producing a favorable outcome.
I'm not sure if this was just my impresion, but the clone against IG did a far poorer case agains IG than the clone on its favour. I mean, the "positive clone" mentioned something like 3 arguments for it while the "negative clone" only presented a counter-argument to only one of the 3 positive arguments, a far weaker case.
+Martin Bittencourt as others have mentioned, it seems that the clone in favor was far more theoretical as to what interest groups should be like. The one against described the ways they tend to function as of now. That's my impression at least.
to be fair, if you are able to articulate your view point more effectively, then you deserve to have more influence. People's ignorance shouldn't be equal to other people's knowledge.
+Andrew Nell Agreed. But I can sit here and craft the most articulate and well written argument ever, but without money to carry it to high places, it will just be another youtube comment. Or at best, another letter to a politician, that his staph will, at best, count, but he or she will never read.
+Ethan Davidson You are right. But even if you had a lot of money, a politician wouldn't take your advice if it would cost him votes to his next election.
Money can fund your campaign, but it can't get you elected. Companies will fund the campaigns of candidates who have the best chance of winning. That is, those who can get more votes.
"I'm still not John Green" aww that made me sad
you are a legend
many finals will be passed because of you
And his eyes are shiny, don't discount that.
Preach!
+
damn this dude has 10m subs
falling...
Mr no-tie wins.. While Mr Tie was talking about the "idea" of how interest groups should function. Mr no-tie was talking more about the way interest groups work today.
I rule in favour of Mr no-tie.
"Certain" Interest groups are too powerful and should be regulated in such a way to preserve the plurality of the endeavour for the American people. Congress should not be encouraged to follow the money
Court adjourned
Seems pretty clear the Craig and the writers lean in that direction too, but this is an American show, and in America truth is determined by democracy instead of through fact. So they have to pretend it's an equal battle to avoid the shitstorm that would ensue if they made it explicit that only one side makes any sense.
+Sebastian Anderson In America, truth is determined by who can afford the more expensive lawyers - or, by extension, who has the most money; the rich.
+Chike Ezebilo It's not the system necessarily that is broken, but the way we implement it and the way we allow it to be regulated and controlled.
There are plenty of other systems that ARE fundamentally horribly broken, but this isn't necessarily one of them. Just....currently horribly abused and exploited.
Like the poor!
+Jens Nielsen In America , more like all civilizations ever.
Armendicus While that's also true, the topic was America, not the rest of the world :P
The problem with any system is the risk of corruption and inequality.
Communism can turn into the state stealing from the entire population and redistributing the entire wealth of the nation to the politicians, and capitalism can lead to the rich holding down the poor by using their excessive capital to shape the nation into favouring the rich, leaving the poor to fend for themselves (as many times seems the case with the US). And a corrupt socialist state could swing either way I guess - into a capitalist nation where the rich get richer while the poor get poorer - or into a communist nation where the state owns more and more and all the profit goes to the politicians.
"Maybe because I am still not John Greene" lol... I wonder what John thought after listening to that!!
Dear crash course , I absolutely love love love Craig doing these videos, I wish he could do more :). It helps me study and he's a very funny guy. Please let him know I think he's magnificent .
Thank you crash course. You're saving me in AP Gov
Megz Bartsch same
Megz Bartsch SAME
Same lol
my ap exam is tomorrow so i FELT that
So bribery is legal in the USA, good to know
+Ashton “Nauct” Simmons It is not. If the interest groups are only allowed to suggest bills, not buy them. It is true though, that both the congressmen and interest group know what the donation means.
+Jeroen Bollen it's illegal, just no one cares unless it suits them to point it out when someone else does it. kind of like Jay walking.
+Ashton “Nauct” Simmons
Quid Pro Quo*
+Jeroen Bollen it's only because "bribery" has a specific legal definition that this doesn't fall into. To most people, the energy industry giving thousands of dollars annually in donations to the chairman of the Senate committee on the environment (who just so happens to constantly try and spread denialism of global warming) is effectively bribery.
Krombopulos Michael
Well that'd mean you are making donations illegal. That'd be fine, but calling that bribary would be confusing. You'd be banning donations to prevent bribary.
The bureaucracy ruined the Galactic Senate.
+William Stockhecker That's easy for the leader of an imperial coup to say. :P
+William Stockhecker Hey I liked the Galactic Senate! GO RODIANS!
+William Stockhecker ... or at least that was Palpatine's excused to have Valorum ousted.
departed402
Exactly, the bureaucracy gave Palpatine the excuse he needed to take over the Senate, thus ruining in.
And in conclusion, everyone was screwed.
While I would like another John Green series I think that you hold your own as a show host.
I'm totally here because I want to learn and not because I have a politics test tomorrow.
Craig, I gotta say you've done a fantastic job at keeping these videos engaging. More so than many of the other crash course hosts (all very helpful, some less engaging) and are on par with the Green brothers!
Probably one of the best crash course videos I've seen to date.
Great introduction, solid material, good recap with conclusion, but I also liked the clone zone, I don't think I've seen you use it before but its great to hear both sides of the argument leaving the viewer to make up their own mind.
Solid stuff, keep it up! :)
+SmallGodFly He's used it a couple times, especially early on in the series.
forced to watch these to help me in one of my courses. I personally think this guy is hilarious. Wish my professor was this entertaining to learn from.
2:30 one of the bills say "Edumacation Kurikulum" *LMAO*
GOOD CALL LMFAOOOOOOOO
Health insurance companies wrote the "affordable" care act.
"We have to pass the bill to see what's in it." - Nancy Pelosi
Insurance premiums are up 400% 📈
Inorganic Vegan
My insurance premium is up 400% and many of my friends are as well. My wife and I are healthy and in our mid 30s we used to pay $200/mo now we pay $400/mo after a $400 tax credit so the real premium on that policy is $800/mo. I speak out of experience!
+Sami Hanish Anecdotes are not citations.
the affordable care act, wasn't it super similar to Nixon's health care plan? it is a system made to benefit the special interest groups under the guise of healthcare for all. only good part is pre existing conditions being un able to prevent you from getting insurance. reading peoples definition of socialism being state controled everything is silly. actual socialists threw out that definition decades ago. now it is about workers having a say in where the companies surplus goes and what sort of choicws are made. sorta a reboot of workers co-ops. Laborers take the materials and add value to it, so why should owners get all the profit? a new way of looking at economics. what will we do when few humans need to work, the next level of automation? allow everyone with no job prospects to starve? have them be slaves or serfs to the company owners? around 38% of jobs are transportation based. Self driving vehicles will throw them all out and more. think of people who carry boxes and such in warehouses. Think Ups, usps, or amazon. Small program able mini vehicles could take all the jobs as well, easily. this is why we need to establish healthcare and education as human rights in our country. or they will be impossible to reach in the future around the corner. our president says we can't start over with a new health care system to sanders... well, with such a crooked system that caters to providers instead of patients... ni amount of changes will help. it needs scraped. we have a system that doesn't work to prevent illnesses, but works to profit when someone is sick. more preventive care and biyearly appointments and regular tests, would save millions in procedural and surgery costs. but guess where insurance companies, hospitalsand drug companies make their money? when people get sick passed the point of curing, and big money in surgeries. needs a reboot.
I think the best way to counter super PACs is to limit campaign contributions. The best way to counter interest groups would be to increase funding for government information, so candidates don't have to rely on them for information. Also, I think that interest groups should not be allowed to directly influence government.
+Ko Gyi "directly influence" is pretty vague. Also, another alternative to limiting campaign funding is have campaigns be mostly funded by tax dollars. That's how we do it in Belgium, and it gives even smaller parties a chance to make it.
Well, by direct influence, I mean like the interest group or super pac shouldn't be allowed to write checks and just give it to the candidate.
+Ko Gyi If I remember correctly, PAC's actually can't give money to politicians. They can't "coordinate" with politicians at all. In theory, they're independent, and advocate for certain policies and the politicians who support those policies. In practice, they're often formed to support one candidate by doing things that don't require direct interaction with the candidate, like running ads for them. So they use their money for the politician's good without giving it to the politician.
Politicians often support these groups' efforts without actually "coordinating" with the PAC. Instead, using Ted Cruz as a real-life example, they'll publish raw footage that would make great campaign ads to a public site like TH-cam where the PAC's can access and use it, but Ted Cruz didn't specifically give it to them so it's not coordination.
Basically, PAC's are a loophole to an existing limit on campaign contributions.
+Ko Gyi The problem is that participation in deed is a big part of democracy. Writing letters to your representative and meet him to discuss and suggest policies....
The problem now is that there is no real balance and often there is no organization to counter a special interest. Like most people don't care and about the details of how certain company equities are taxed and sold unless you are such a company. So they are the only ones having a say in the law or regulation and therefore they will make it in a way that profits them. The "general public" would have an interest but can't actually make a common formulation of what is there interest.
Perhaps we could limit contributions on a per-group basis. Ex: no more than ten or twenty percent of a campaign's funding can come from a particular interest group or super pac.
A hydraulic press would be a more efficient way to exert pressure onto that eagle
aw, don't worry, we still love you Greg!
Are you sure? I thought for sure it was Greg; like Greg Ferguson, that scottish guy.
I always thought that was a type-o. I've never know anyone named Craig. Well Greg Lee from back in school kept saying his name was Craig, but I always thought he was joking.
CrashCourse are a life saver. Studying US politics as a student in the UK is difficult enough already with how foreign the system is to ours but these videos are getting me my A grades :)
anybody else cramming for AP Gov at 2x speed
I'm feeling the Bern.
+LarlemMagic Then don't vote, you are too stupid, ignorant and naive to understand what is going on.
kingofprussia17 Na-uh, yer stupid. :p
LarlemMagic Nice, comeback; sarcasm.
+kingofprussia17
He just wanted to name a senator who doesn't accept donations as much as other senators.
Let him be.
Sydney Grosskopf yeeeees?
I just want to let you know that you are genuinely funny, and every bit as good as Green. Not that you'll ever see this, but there. I said it.
"because I'm not John Green"
Yes... bitchslap the haters.
haha, Craig your awesome! don't compare yourself with world history :-) both of you are fantastic!
Interests groups are the essence of our republic. All kinds of non wealthy people join them. Think of the casual NRA or NAACP member.
+Jace Beckham We aren't a democracy, but a constitutional Republic. You don't have to be rich to influence Congress. People join interest groups, aggregating what resources they have, to stand up for their interests.
You don't have to be wealthy to affect political change; you only need to stand up and do something. Interest groups are simply free people standing up and doing something.
Thank you for recognizing the importance of this topic. It helps to cancel out some of your neutrality bias when you point out the wealthy have more power in this rigged system.
have you seen countries run by poor guys? NO NO haven't you know why cause those countries suck
'neutrality bias'. I've never heard that phrase before, but it's really good. It perfectly sums up a lot of things like TestTube, and this (before this video where they seem to have caved into pressure and just told the truth).
+TheJ33s3 Your logic. Have you seen countries run by rich guys? No, you haven't because then you'd know why those countries suck. Just because your country is wealthy doesn't immediately mean it's the result of the actions of the ruling class. Countries run by free thinking intellectuals who care enough about practical fairness hardly suck, Africa is in disorder because it had the potential for accumulating great wealth, so guess what? Various civil wars run rampant because each faction is too busy trying capitalize on Africa's natural resources for themselves instead of cooperating and working together and mutually benefiting. America's foundational democracy was meant to curb any potential power bias to govern effectively, so there is obviously a problem when the power elite becomes a reality and the corporations have more power over the government than the government over corporations.
Jackboy019 actually a country run by a mix of the middle class and the few rich have been the most stable and successful historically unfortunately
@@Jackboy019 The Founding Fathers all had lots of lands, banks, and even slaves, while over 90% of Americans lived on as modest farmers. Much of American history was predominated by the WASP elite. And yet the economy grew the fastest in that period, and lots of people made lots of money, while the government was small.
Also, our tax rates are progressive, and we have plenty of programs for the poor. If only the rich had their say, we wouldn't have any of that.
“Well I have a chart”
“Aooh”
6:20
Even if these Congresspersons are not directly favoring the wealthy over the poor, those who can pay for access to these politicians carry the voices said politicians are hearing most often. The more you're exposed to something, the more familiar - and comfortable - one becomes with it. And so the question becomes whether this coziness impacts the objectivity of OUR politicians.
What exactly happens to all those lobbying dollars? Is it just spent on campaign advertising which seems rather harmless, or are politicians actually pocketing it somehow
3:15 nice Blood Sweat and Tears reference (a year before it came out)
Stella Zarivy OMGGG MONEY MONEY MOMEY
I freaking went through the comments just to see if anyone else had noticed it xd ARMYs RULE THE WORLD 💜
Boutta try to ""lobby"" some politicians by talking to them, but I don't have any money. Wish me luck!
how is it legal for a political representative to accept money or other similar things from a corporation or company? isnt that obvious conflict of interest
+lukassnakeman not really...the money is used for campaigning, party politics, and ideological issues, pro/con, not for personal use, rather for the political system. its necessary to have funding if you want to run for office. if interest groups agree with your platform theyll support you, if they dont, theyll oppose you through another candidate. its almost like starting a business, you have to prove your viability, the ability to get elected on your platform, to gain funding support.
***** well, it still pisses me off
lukassnakeman until you are part of an interest group or you found your own....lol
***** what about the case of climate change, which is real. its in coal and oil companies best interest for people to use their product and not be regulated on how much carbon they put in the atmosphere. but it's in the publics best interest to have breathable air, hospitable climate, and some nature to enjoy. consistently the politicians who accept money from fossil fuel corporations vote against measures that are in the publics best interest and favor policies for their donors who are motivated by greed
well, climate change is a complex issue in america, and all i have to tell you about it is follow the money...america is a resource rich country who founded the use of gasoline, understandably there are deep interests in the industry who want to prevent alternative...solar, wind, and even nuclear...and so this debate of competing interests is masked as climate change, that is not to say that climate change is not real, its just how it applies practically...plus we all want cheap energy, which fossil fuels relatively are...so there are real rational reasons why some, if not many, americans dont believe in climate change, because it hits at their pocket book....make renewable energy more competitive than fossil fuels and a "job creator," and theyll, americans, be singing a different tune...
We no longer have a democracy, at least not at the federal level, due primarily to money in politics. Money in politics has destroyed our democracy. Look at the study called, "Testing Theories of American Politics:Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page (Princeton University). They analyzed 1799 policy proposals from 1979 to 2002 and found that public opinion had ZERO influence on public policy, but interest group goals had 95% correlation with the bills proposed. We need to get money out of politics so our representatives can represent the people instead of corporations and rich donors.
I have learned more from these videos than any textbook or lecture. Thank you!!
I am not sure I completely agree with the no tie clone. Interest groups like Unions survive, not on large donations, but rather on small membership dues. When you pay your membership dues, you are allowing the Union to provide the large voice on your behalf. Unions are still outspending Super PACs.
WE STILL LOVE YOU CRAIG!!!!!!
I'm not disappointed in you Craig, I love ya!!
just finished this chapter in AP gov
amen for this crash course series
Thanks for making this video I was confused about Interest Groups and whether they are good or bad but this video helped me learn and decide for myself.
Wheezy '16. LOVE the thought bubbles!
The clones are so funny! "Well I have a chart!" LMAO
At first I yelled at the screen like who is this guy but he understands we want the brothers! I like him!!!
Government finals tomorrow from the university of maryland! thanks! much Love!
Bingo! The rich, as a group, has more power than the poor to influence the American political system. That's why about 400 rich people who earn about $200 million a year pays only about 20% in taxes.
I love these videos. They are so helpful when studying for a social studies test.
Hillarious and informative! Love it!
These help me study for midterms, you are a legend
god bless you guys for making these videos and helping me pass my political science class
My professor uses ur content for our class 😅 love it
You were right!.... But also wrong, I hadn't seen a Crash Course Video for a while so when you, Craig, appeared I was disappointed, but it was well put together video and by the end i could say "this video will not disappoint you" was very accurate.
This is really well done and loaded with lots of great information. Thank you.
Gotta get money out of politics. Our republic is an oligarchy, and that just cannot continue.
Im a college freshmen going to a UC school...and this was still super informative bless up before my final
7:28 - I busted up laughing when you said "this is empty" lol
Everybody wants to control the milkshakes. Too bad they're mine.
Craig is awesome.
I always wanted to know how it works, thank you
Thank u so much. These little mini videos help tremendously! Defiantly put me in the right direction so that I knew what to google for my Government Paper, thanks sooo much!!
You're doing great, Craig!!!
I was of the view that John Green has no match, but you are equally awesome!
Interest groups do, in fact, exert a great deal of pressure on the courts, though not specifically the Supreme Court...also, not to the same degree that they do on Congress. They file lawsuits for bills that are antithetical to their interests all the time. They choose cases with sets of facts favorable to them, and engage in "forum shopping" to find a court willing to hear the case, hopefully producing a favorable outcome.
There should be a first law of political systems that states:
Every political structure tends to corporatism as time passes.
You are brilliant, Craig!
Time for this video to help me on my AP Comp Gov FRQ question!!!!!
07:02 Thanks beautiful clones :D ... I find the cc Government and Politics well written and Craig is very funny (funny in a good sense).
This CrashCourse is helping me more than google for SOL :)
i have my ap gov midterm tomorrow so i greatly appreciate these videos thank u
interesting
groups
controversy
+OG gerald ford (cocainebubbles) Is
I like you and John green. Why must I pick one or the other !
:)
whats your comment saying. i cant see it.
*****
If you knew the actual meme history, you would know that john cena's catch phrase is you can't see him.
*****
That is obvious.
oh well, the more you know. (insert meme photo here)
One day, when I'm not cramming for an ap gov test, I will take the time to look at the graphics in the intro.
Aw Craig, I still love you, even though you haven't been able to change into John Green! Don't stop trying! I believe in you!
oh boy I'm first.. I need to think of something funny...
nope got nothing.
You worthless piece of shit, step up!
Thanks for this enlighten video. You help me understand the differences of interests groups and how they affect the poor and favor the wealthy.
Great job man
I'm not sure if this was just my impresion, but the clone against IG did a far poorer case agains IG than the clone on its favour. I mean, the "positive clone" mentioned something like 3 arguments for it while the "negative clone" only presented a counter-argument to only one of the 3 positive arguments, a far weaker case.
+Martin Bittencourt as others have mentioned, it seems that the clone in favor was far more theoretical as to what interest groups should be like. The one against described the ways they tend to function as of now. That's my impression at least.
Awesome video!!
to be fair, if you are able to articulate your view point more effectively, then you deserve to have more influence. People's ignorance shouldn't be equal to other people's knowledge.
+Andrew Nell Agreed. But I can sit here and craft the most articulate and well written argument ever, but without money to carry it to high places, it will just be another youtube comment. Or at best, another letter to a politician, that his staph will, at best, count, but he or she will never read.
+Ethan Davidson You are right. But even if you had a lot of money, a politician wouldn't take your advice if it would cost him votes to his next election.
Nice Mets reference.
THANK YOU!!
I wish you would make crash course political science.
This video helps me a lot! Thank you so much! Wish me luck on my presentation about interests group tomorrow!
Crash Course stay saving me in my AP classes
In my third period civics class we have a test every class, so i have to study every even day. THNX M8
How you learn with a test every class....lol
Let's Go Mets!
Craig is better in my opinion
Would love to see a video on superpacs!
I just want you to know if you can make a video on " running for political office"
People love to complain about interest groups... except for the interest groups they like.
You are an awesome person
actually I actively avoid John green so I'll never be disappointed seeing craig
I like you Craig.
lmao he killed it.
Someday you gotta do the CLOWN Zone.
Can we throw money to change Craig into John? No? Then why do we even have an interest group!
Money can fund your campaign, but it can't get you elected. Companies will fund the campaigns of candidates who have the best chance of winning. That is, those who can get more votes.
I actually learned something online
inconceivable!!!
I thought "John Green" was a mantle of responsibility, like Thor or Spiderman.
Hey crash course, can you do politics, but at an international level?
Craig says "Political action committee," but the graphic says "Political action committee."