Class Warfare Blog

December 24, 2013

Why Do We Let Money Rule?

Why do we let corporations, like the private prison conglomerates currently, donate money to politicians who decide whether they receive contracts and under what conditions? Why do we let politicians who have accepted money from such donors vote on bills that affect their benefactors?

What do we call it if a judge were to accept money from a client or a client’s attorney (aka lobbyist)? What do we call it when an foreign official is given money to make a decision favorable to the gifter? What do we call it when criminals give money to police to cause them to look away for a short while?

Why are their laws against bribing our own judges and police in this country and even bribing officials in foreign countries but it is acceptable, even legal, to bribe our own officials in this country?

If we don’t solve this problem, money will always rule . . . or rather those with the money will rule.

We could start by restricting campaign donations to people represented by a politician (currently or potentially) and we could allow corporations to lobby but not promise jobs or give money to politicians. They could talk all they wanted and provide as much information as they wanted, but to allow them to bribe our officials? Insanity.

Advertisements

7 Comments »

  1. We’ve restricted total political donations to a per person amount in Canada (as far as I’m aware no unlimited corporate donations are allowed). But we also publicly fund political parties based on a per capita amount from the previous electoral vote. I ain’t perfect but it’s a step in the right direction, I think: the greater the voter support, the more money that party has to use for its own operations and preparing for the next election. This amount is about a single digit percentage (1-2%) compared to the US and the billion spent on presidential campaigns and similarly reduces the influence of lobby groups.

    Like

    Comment by tildeb — December 24, 2013 @ 11:02 am | Reply

    • All sound ideas, but Canadians, eh, you’re known to be sensible. Ain’t wild and wooly enough here!

      Like

      Comment by stephenpruis — December 24, 2013 @ 11:55 am | Reply

      • Sensible, mostly, but still a tad too socialistic and therefore communistic and therefore regulatory and therefore Satan’s spawn!

        Like

        Comment by tildeb — December 24, 2013 @ 2:38 pm | Reply

      • And, according to Palin, full up to the brim with Death Panels!

        Speaking of death panels, my medical bill this year? (I do have an employer benefits for dental & drugs)

        Six family physician visits, one set of flu shots, blood analysis, two trips to Urgent Care clinic, two UC doctor consultations (like an ER but without the threat to life and limb), two sets of x-rays, two slings, three specialist appointments, one surgery (outpatients and recovery), one set of stitches, physiotherapy consultation and bi-weekly appointments, all associated drugs and materials: total direct cost to me: $29.85.

        Damn communists!

        (Our family’s gross income is just above the national average, pay about 30% in federal and provincial taxes, homeowners, and we are debt – and mortgage – free).

        We’re still waiting on those death panels (maybe they’re hung up in socialized medical bureaucracy).

        Like

        Comment by tildeb — December 24, 2013 @ 2:57 pm | Reply

        • I think it all is fueled by racism at this point. The world is changing around them and they want their world of white privilege to perservere. What they are afraid of losing is beyond me, but the fear mongers are very clear at being vague.

          Like

          Comment by stephenpruis — December 24, 2013 @ 4:08 pm | Reply

  2. I think if we just apply personal contribution limits to corporations, set these limits relatively low, say $500-$5000 depending on election level, and make these limits applicable to all political activity, politicians will no longer have much of an incentive to work for corporation. If, say a corporation can offer, say, $1000 max to support a politician’s campaign that will cost $3 million (and that will also mean the corporation won’t be able to sponsor any other politicians at the same level) – I doubt that politician would go out of his way to vote for something he wouldn’t normally support.

    Like

    Comment by List of X — December 24, 2013 @ 5:43 pm | Reply

    • They also offer jobs after the pols leave office, that needs to be nixed, too. Good idea.

      Like

      Comment by stephenpruis — December 24, 2013 @ 7:12 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: