“Can’t control politicians anymore? Nooooo!”
Of, course, they’ve been this doing since, well, the beginning. Bribing for influence… er, um… contributing to campaigns was a staple in Roman times. It’s just that it’s now so woven into the fabric of our political process that the process pretty much exists solely for those who benefit from those bri… er, contributions. I’m an avowed capitalist, but I just want the little guy to occasionally get a real say in how his world is run, too. Yeah, I know. What have I been smokin’?
The most important issue to young people in the 2008 campaign is one that no presidential candidate will discuss. In fact, even touching on this subject is taboo for anyone with aspirations to Congress or the White House. Anyone who has the temerity to mention this political third rail will almost certainly lose the campaign.
The issue is the curtailing of corporate power, and as long as corporations continue to finance major candidates, it will remain unspoken. No one running for office wants to be blacklisted by corporate lobbyists in Washington.
That’s a shame, because this issue is connected to almost every other problem facing America today. As long as corporations have no incentive to avoid polluting, we will continue to poison this planet at an alarming rate, and as long as corporate lobbyists hold an inordinate amount of influence in Washington, there will be no substantive solutions to problems like income inequality or our woefully inadequate healthcare system.
Why is it always ‘corporations destroying our democracy’ and no one every holds the government officials accountable?
They’re the ones in charge of the laws and such. They can stop it. They don’t because *they’re* corrupt. Instead, the finger always seems to point to the evils of capitalism.
Yet we all want these corrupt people to have greater control over our lives through higher taxation and meddling in our day to day affairs (and we blame someone else).
So if they’re such a problem, why don’t we just abolish all of them?
don’t be so silly. it takes obscene amounts of money even at the municipal level to achieve so much as name recognition for a candidate.
who has that kind of money? large organizations like corporations.
even as a liberal, what i find lacking here is a similar indictment of other well-funded groups like labor unions — they own a few democrats, don’t ya know.
There are interesting perspectives on this issue here:
http://tinyurl.com/yqu556
@Grog
You are beating a dead horse. Labor unions aren’t what they used to be. Major corporations and industry interest groups (K Street anyone?) have much more influence.
One place to start is by looking for candidates financed from many small sources (individuals) rather than a few large ones (corporations).
Public financed campaigns is simply a no brainer.
The politicians have a bipartisan love for the current system and we citizens should have a bipartisan hate for it.
The current system of legalized bribery will be the end of democracy if we don’t fix it.
The main objection to public financing is so wrong it’s the opposite of true: that it will be expensive.
Expensive is when a company an donate a hundred thousand dollars to a senator to get a billion dollar contract to built a piece of crap the military doesn’t need or want.
And that’s what happens now and will continue to happen if we don’t fix this system.
The biggest impediment against this reform, unfortunately, is the media which also love the current system since they bribe politicians as much as any other big billion-dollar corporation.
#3 “well-funded groups like labor unions ”
The unions are no more, and what is left of them have no political clout. The corporations own the Demi-Cans and Repuli-Crats. That is the problem, there is only one voice being represented in “our” government, the corporate voice. The corporations should have a voice as well as everbody else, whether you agree with them or not, diversity is always good. Personally I think two voices, unions and corporations, is too few, but definitly one is not enough.
This guy is right on target!!
Great book on the subject: The I Hate Corporate America Reader.
#1 – Brad,
The reason is for the same reason that when they wanted to stop the trade in ivory, they attacked the source of the demand. If you want to stop corporations from running the country, you must literally reduce their rights. Corporations are not living beings. They do not have inalienable rights. Other than that though, you are correct. Perhaps it is an issue that must be attacked from both sides.
How can corportations be so bad if they are supporting you and your family?
#3 – grog,
even as a liberal, what i find lacking here is a similar indictment of other well-funded groups like labor unions — they own a few democrats, don’t ya know.
Very few since 197x. Possibly not even enough these days.
#7 – Greg Allen,
Excellent point. I’d add that we also have to disallow use of one’s own funds for campaign financing as well. Though I think Mike Bloomberg is doing a great job and am glad NYC elected him. I voted against him for the reasons that A) I did not like him buying the election (He outsepent his opponent 7:1, if I remember correctly.) and B) I felt that he had no prior political experience.
Yes, nice conflation/confusion of 3-4 different issues as pointed out above.
I will seperate another issue==the two party winner take all system in place is very bad for democracy. This “either-or” thinking is the foundation of much of western thinking/orientation to the world.
While corruption will always be with us, some “processes” are more prone to it than others. Some more “correcting” than others.
Easy to do away with the electorial college representational form of elections?
Easy to install cumulative voting ((vote for candidates in order of preference. First one over 50% wins.)).
Final comment touched upon above – – Uncle Dave==being an avowed capitalist says nothing about what rules should control/constrict CORPORATIONS. I very much like paying the top management a multiple of the average employee pay. Lots of good consequences from such an easy, still free market, rule.
#14 – bobbo,
And, if we want capitalism, we must get rid of corporate welfare. We can start by closing the Export Import Bank. Even in years with record profits, ExxonMobil will (and did) line up for their hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate welfare at ExIm. And ExIm is relatively small potatoes at just a gigabuck a year. We give out plenty more corporate welfare from other sources.
First off, by virtue of their privilege of limited liability, corporations are protectorates of the state/government. They exist only to the extent that the state agrees to continue the protection. Despite the musings from Santa Clara County Vs. Southern Pacific, corporations are not people any more than a hammer is a person. They are tools, used by people to accomplish a goal. As such, they are subject to rules that do not apply to actual people.
I suggest that corporations be banned from all contributions to political campaigns. They can’t vote, after all, and really have no business influencing elections. Same for labor unions, though their influence is minor in most races these days.
Individuals, on the other hand, if registered to vote, should be free to give everything up to and including the shirt off their backs. I wonder how Hillary would do in that world!
Good lord. Can’t any of you think for yourselves??? Do you just swallow whole anything that seems to fit your political views.
Are you so gullible that you are influenced the opinion of a high school student?
What makes corporations the number one issue of young people?
I would think it would be things like education, getting a job, national debt, or even Social Security, which they will pay for, but get nothing back.
If unions have no clout, how are they getting the Democrat Party to pass card check laws? Talk about corporations destroying democracy, yet it’s the unions insisting on rules that take away secret ballot elections.
Scott #13:
I agree with you. Heaven help America if we’re run by the super rich who buy their way into office.
The second impediment, that I didn’t mention, is the Supreme Court who have ruled that spending money is free speech.
I actually see the point of that ruling when the money is spent on media — clearly a form of speech.
So, I think this will probably need to come down to a constitutional amendment.
I’m not optimistic about that, however, since the big money will spend big money to spread lies about the clear benefits of public financed elections.
There are TWO optimistic points, however. Traditionally the GOP has been dead-set against public financing since they’ve traditionally had the edge over Democrats in fundraising. However, that has changed recently making me hope that some conservatives will change their votes. There are still a number of liberal voices supporting public financing.
I can’t say this loud enough: WE MUST END THE LEGALIZED BRIBERY OF OUR CURRENT SYSTEM. Our democracy is at stake.
Minor rules changes won’t do this. We need to ban ALL private money from elections. ALL. Anything less has proven not to work.
#17 – Smith,
At least we had something to say. Let us know when you do. We’d love to hear it.
#18 – MikeN,
We probably shouldn’t hijack this thread into a social security discussion. So, just to keep it short, I’ll point out that with very minor adjustments, social security is forecast to be good for another 40 years. Further, how many other government programs have 2 trillion dollars in treasuries backing them? Sounds stable to me.
#16
I agree with you.
I have always wondered how “strict constitutionalists” also are usually the biggest defenders of corporate rights.
Where in the constitution are corporations given free speech or any other civil rights?
I favor a ban on ANY private financing of elections.
But short of that, I suppose one possible idea is to allow ONLY personal donations, by individuals RESIDING in the same state or district as the candidate or initiative.
In other words, a tobacco CEO living in West Virginia is not allowed to donate against a anti-smoking initiative in Oregon. Corporations (or any other collective including unions, PACs,law firms, businesses etc) would not be allowed to donate at all.
Simply put: a voter is only allowed to make a strictly limited donation to something on his/her own ballot.
Every other donation is illegal.
That might work although I never underestimate the way for these guys to find loopholes.
If corporations are “Persons”, why aren’t they paying taxes at the Personal Income Tax Rate like the rest of us Persons ? Aren’t any laws distinguishing Corporations from Persons a violation of the Equal Protection Clause ( Article 4 ?) ? Perhaps President Obama will sic. the IRS on all those Corporations (for current and past due taxes) and PAY OFF THE NATIONAL DEBT !!! Justice – What a concept !!!
#8 Dave
I agree with you when you talk about the traditional trade union but not when it comes to the National Education Association! The NEA has a stranglehold on education issue at both the state and federal level.
Until the strings are cut between state and federal politicians and the NEA, true education reform will never happen and the GOUSA
hey…..what happened? My comment self-posted!
Anyway, I was going to say that until the strings are cut between state and federal politicians and the NEA, true education reform will never happen and the GOUSA will continue to lose competitive ground in the world.
And let’s not forget the war in Iraq that exists solely for the benefit of the corporations.
Isn’t that picture out of the hudsucker proxy?
#25 BillM
I hear ya’ on the NEA, I think they should represent the teachers on wages and benefits and keep their snout out of the curriculum. I think a lot of the educaton funding issues are because of the reduction of class sizes implemented (negotiated) by the NEA, which means more teachers (more dues (more political power)) for them, more teachers (more taxes(unproven better education)) for us.
But I don’t think the NEA should dissapear like the trade unions are (have). So how do you strike a balance in power? some in here have said no contributions from organizations only individuals, maybe a good start?
Hey, I just remembered another interesting (to me anyway) factoid from the I Hate Corporate America Reader. Of the 100 largest financial entities in the world, 51 are corporations, 49 are nations.
Anyone else thinking ‘YIKES!!!’?