4 ms·
This is wrong and out-of-date for multiple reasons. 1. Corporate spending in politics has had negligible impact after Citizens United: https://www.nber.org/pap
by jmeister 4y ago
This is wrong and out-of-date for multiple reasons.
1. Corporate spending in politics has had negligible impact after Citizens United:
https://www.nber.org/papers/w30352 https://www.nber.org/papers/w30352
2. These days, the ostensibly pro-business party(GOP) gets more of its money from individuals and SME donors than the Democratic party.
Your real problem is public opinion itself. The public in America simply trusts corporations over government institutions(except maybe the military). David Shor has great(but damning for progressives) analyses of this phenomenon.
- jacobolus 4y agoHint: when you say “Democrat party” rather than "Democratic Party" you are giving away your game too easily. This is what GOP partisans call the party as an intentional slight. The only ordinary people I ever hear use this name are those who habitually watch Fox News.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jefftk 4y agoContext and history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)
- jmeister 4y agoI didn’t know the history behind the pejorative usage. Thanks for pointing out. EDIT: I'm a recentish immigrant, so help me out with this inconsistency: Why Democrats and not Democratics? Why Republicans and not Republics?
- ad404b8a372f2b9 4y agoThere is no game to be given away, this is not sports and these are not teams to be cheered for or jeered against. The modern version of the Godwin's law is people bringing up dog-whistling in a conversation.
- peteradio 4y agoAnd yet Democrat's party or party of Democrats is entirely correct. How exactly is it supposed to be interpreted as a slight in this day and age?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jwond 4y agoSeems like tilting at windmills to me. Republicans are members of the Republican party Democrats are members of the Democrat party
- dnissley 4y agoIronically the above take about money in politics is so popular that the narrative around it is basically impossible to change at this point (at least among people left of center). I don't think any amount of evidence could change most people's minds, and I've tried many times.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- lbwtaylor 4y agoWhile the article you cite does not identify changes to US state taxation, in this period we've had an incredible reduction in corporate taxation at the federal level, so I'm not sure I find the research paper convincing for the larger point being discussed.
- germinalphrase 4y agoYour NBER resource is specific only to the impact of corporate spending on state-level tax policy, not "politics" writ large.