Cialdini raamat
obligations often underlies the stated purpose of supporting a favorite candi-
date. One look at the lists of companies and organizations that contribute to the
campaigns of both major candidates in important elections gives evidence of
such motives. A skeptic, requiring direct evidence of the quid pro quo expected
by political contributors, might look to the remarkably bald-faced admission by
businessman Roger Tamraz at congressional hearings on campaign finance re-
form. When asked if he felt he received a good return on his contribution of
$300,000, he smiled and replied, "I think next time, I'll give $600,000."
Honesty of this sort is rare in politics. For the most part, the givers and takers
join voices to dismiss the idea that campaign contributions, free trips, and Super
Bowl tickets would bias the opinions of "sober, conscientious" government offi-
cials
annaabi.ee 
