3 ms·
Just a minor correction: It is pretty widely accepted hypothesis that politicians do not "corrupt" when they are elected to office but that corporations suppor
by hammerdr 15y ago
Just a minor correction:
It is pretty widely accepted hypothesis that politicians do not "corrupt" when they are elected to office but that corporations support politicians which favor their positions. Politicians that have money have legitimacy. Legitimate candidates get elected.
Couple that with the fact that corporations often donate to 50+ candidates (on both sides of the aisle) and not only do they have a pre-polling vote (through money) but they also get to play in many elections.
It's the house vs. the people and the house always wins.
- asdfasdghasdf 15y agoIf you can produce evidence that a corporation has donated to even one candidate, much less 50, the FEC would love to speak to you; it's illegal for corporations to donate to candidates.
- packetslave 15y agoEver heard of a PAC?
- asdfasdghasdf 15y agoNot only have I heard of PACs, but I've given to my employer's PAC, which than donated money to the campaigns of 50+ candidates. I don't know if you've participated in the system, but it's not fair to equate that with a corporation donating its own money to a political campaign.
- pak 15y agoThere are many ways for a corporation to provide value to a candidate besides a cash donation. Some of these ways can translate readily into cash. For example, insider trading by congresspeople, which apparently is legal. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7388130n http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7388130n http://www.cnbc.com/id/45249857 http://www.cnbc.com/id/45249857