5 ms·
> Whereas in Nazi Germany the state dominated economic actors, in inverted totalitarianism, corporations through political contributions and lobbying, dominate
by salient 13y ago
> Whereas in Nazi Germany the state dominated economic actors, in inverted totalitarianism, corporations through political contributions and lobbying, dominate the United States, with the government acting as the servant of large corporations. This is considered "normal" rather than corrupt
Indeed. As a non-American, I find it quite absurd that corporations can "donate money" to change a Congressman's opinion on a law, and then support them in Congress when passing new bills. As far as I know that's what bribing is pretty much anywhere else. So US has in effect legalized bribing, and almost everyone in US seems to think that's "normal" and okay, and that there's "little corruption" in US, when in fact the whole government wreaks of "legalized" corruption.
Does that happen in other countries, too? Sure. Bribing is everywhere. But at least we see it for what it is, and even if we don't catch them in the act, there can be investigations later, and have them arrested. Good luck doing that in US - ever.
- thomasz 13y ago> Does that happen in other countries, too? Yes. Donations from corporations are legal in nearly every country, in mine, in the USA, most likely also in yours. That's really nothing to bash america over.
- bad_user 13y agoTrue, but at least lobbying is transparent and there are rules to it. Those that donate money for an electoral campaign are required to make those donations without strings attached. Of course, there are always strings attached, that's implicit, but if somebody tries to coerce a politician into doing something, that's as illegal as bribery in other countries. In functional democracies, making bribing illegal works, in theory at least, but in semi-functional democracies like the countries from Eastern Europe where oligarchies happen, dirty politicians are untouchable and mass media is owned by the rich that are part of the ruling parties. Basically, if a politician is bribed, at most you'll only hear rumours and nothing else will happen. And if some big-profile case does indeed happen, those involved will just keep a low profile until the public forgets about it and then you'll see them back in the next elections. There is no real opposition either. They fight against each other only on TV. Note that I was born and still living in Romania. It's not so bad here as I describe it, but not that far either. The real underlying problem in every country is of course that the public is so freaking stupid, lacking long-term memory and being easily swayed by electoral alms.
- threelettered 13y agosounds like the USA.
- praptak 13y agoIt is interesting that "make it legal or else we'll break the law and do it illegally at a greater cost to society" works for politicians and not for drug users.
- Lazare 13y ago> As a non-American, I find it quite absurd that corporations can "donate money" to change a Congressman's opinion on a law, and then support them in Congress when passing new bills. Let's be clear: Under US law, a corporation cannot donate money to a candidate under any circumstance. They can, however, spend money independently of a candidate, for example, to produce newspaper or documentary, write and publish a book, hire a billboard, produce and air an ad, etc. On the other hand, in Australia, Germany, the UK, corporations can make unlimited donations directly to politicians. My, that does sound absurd. (Really, I'm not sure what's worse: Your lack of understanding of how US law works, or your lack of understand of how non-US law works. You may understand how your local election laws work, but the world is a big place. Sweeping statements just make you look silly.)
- bananacurve 13y agoHe may look silly and be uninformed but he gets a lot of easy up votes.
- threelettered 13y agoWhat about Citizens United? The US Supreme Court Jesters declared corporations ARE people expressly so they could make unlimited political contributions, saying it is "free speech". We live in a super fucking corrupt nation.
- huntaub 13y agoNo. Citizen's United merely allowed corporations to air "electioneering communications" independently of the candidate close to the election. It did not do anything regarding direct financial contributions [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Elec... (third paragraph)
- rayiner 13y agoUh, no. Citizens United was about actual speech (a political movie), not money. It doesn't allow corporations to make political contributions, it says that they can't be prevented from spending money to present particular points of view. For example, take the Google, Microsoft, etc, NYT full page ad opposing NSA spying. That's precisely what Citizens United protects.