rocketpig said:
I see it as a problem with incumbents, not necessarily first-timers. After a time, incumbent politicians are in bed with so many lobbyists that they need to keep scratching backs to keep that money flowing. Look at SOPA. Almost universally, the public thought it was a terrible idea. After a time, Republicans started bailing out from under the bill. Why? They don't get Hollywood money. Their interest was minimized. But those Democrats who supported the bill and received Hollywood money, they stood firm with the bill. Shit, those dirty motherfuckers at the MPAA actually threatened Congress because of it. That's when you know corporate America has too much influence in politics. Instead of backing off after the public went nuts over the bill, the MPAA turned into bullies, threatening those who stopped supporting the bill. The more corporate money there is in politics, the more the will of the people is marginalized. Everybody should have a say in politics but when you're dealing with entities that have billions of dollars to throw at a problem, their influence needs to be limited by somebody and elected politicians won't do it because they're the ones receiving the money. |
I don't know, i think that might be more due to off the books bribery (like Chris Dodd) then anything else... well or douchebags like John Edwards.
I mean, what are they going to do, support the politcian with the opposite position on the othre side of the isle?
My point is, no matter what laws you make, the amount of corprate money in politcs won't change. The only thing that will change is how it's spent.
Unless you go full publicly funded with some heavy heavy restrictions and monitoring. on tv, which just seems impossible as far as the US is concerend, and honestly ill advised.
Now... anonymousness... that should be done away with though.
Not sure how privacy got mixed up in it.
