Campaign Finance Reform
The whole political process is being corrupted by campaign donors. Congressmen rely on big donors to get elected with the unfortunate consequence of such contributors having much more say over legislation than the little guy. For example:
“College professors and others in the education field have contributed more money than the oil industry and drug makers, with the nearly unanimous goal of putting a Democrat in the White House,” the report said.
We must ban together and take back our democracy from these rich progressives. Lets hear your outrage Darwin!
August 15th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Yes, I want ALL special interest groups to get their money out of politics, techer’s unions and oil tycoons alike.
BTW, it’s worth pointing out that you can say teacher’s contribute the most by parcelling up all the other groups by industry, but all big businesses want largely similar pro-big-business legislation passed.
August 15th, 2007 at 10:10 am
I would say a single professor giving money to defeat the incompetent Bush administration is quite different from a large corporation giving money to buy a candidate. While professors try to influence elections, industry tries to influence policy and legislation.
Besides, this is an isolated incident of educated, politically minded citizens trying to unseat Bush. I guarantee this high level of giving will not last.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Darwin,
Corporations most certainly do not share the same the goals. This is one of the biggest problems you overlook when you take the typical ignorant liberal position that CORPORATIONS = PROFIT. For example, in the net neutrality debate you have big corporations on both sides arguing for OPPOSITE sides of the legislation(Google supports neutrality Time Warner is against it). Did I mention you have large corporations WITH OPPOSITE goals in regards to how to handle internet infrastructure. Opposite Positions. Liberals, especially the ‘educated’ ones, like to say that what separates them from conservatives is their nuanced and sophisticated understanding of things. Yet in the same way George Bush declared certain countries to be plain and simple evil you make the same kinds of ridiculously poor generalization about corporations.
Michael,
Whats the point of influencing an election if not to influence policy and legislation?
August 16th, 2007 at 8:39 am
Things all corporations want:
-Weaker Unions and Labor
-Weaker labor laws
-Lower taxes on capital gains
-Lower taxes on imported goods and removal of other roadblocks to outsourcing
-Weaker anti-trust laws
-Less legal recourse for consumers/employees/citizens to sue corporations
-etc.
Yes there are some specific issues where 2 corporations are on opposite sides, but there are PLENTY of legislative moves that simply make the rich richer, and any corporation rich enough to give a ton of money to politicians will benefit from them.
August 16th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Jesus. Here we go again.
1 & 2: Companies that support unions logistically. For example a company that prints all of their propaganda or a public relations firm that handles their image. Would you consider law firms to be businesses. Because I would say there are some big money maker firms that would support stronger labor laws. You certainly can’t forget union lobbying firms.
3. From what I read in about one minute on wikipedia, capital gains tax is taxing profit on the sale of an asset. Clearly then we could see companies that do not engage in this kind of business arguing for capital gains tax as a way of attenuating the financial advantage of companies that do.
4. Outsourcing. Are you fucking kidding. The most immediate example is telemarketing. In the nineties Omaha became noted for it’s large telemarketing industry. An industry that has shrunk significantly thanks to outsourcing. Do you think these companies would favor outsourcing?
5. Companies that run a strong ethical business could potentially argue against these kinds of laws as a way of keeping their practices as a selling point for their company.
“but there are PLENTY of legislative moves that simply make the rich richer”
In a free market system, absolutely every single one of these ‘bad’ positions are not to ‘MAKE PROFIT’, they are to make the corporation more efficient which in turns leads to increased wealth for everyone. And yes, more so for those that identify the efficiencies.
Example: Companies that argue against stronger labor unions do so because this artificially raises the costs of their products. This increase in cost leads to what? You guessed it; OUTSOURCING to countries where they don’t have to deal with tight labor laws.
Example: Strong anti-trust laws prevent what? The absorption of bad corporate business models into efficient business models. The cost of products remains higher.
Example: Onerous litigious burden placed on corporations leads to what? Increased pricing for products to protect against frivolous lawsuits preventing poorer people access to these products. (The difference in price between a Chevy Car and its Chinese Clone is $5,000. Oh that and all the safety features and emission standards mandated by the state.)
Example: What happens to a firm faced with high capital gains tax when it’s competitor in countries with lower capital gains tax? The firm goes out of business. This puts people out of jobs unless of course they move to that other country. And this doesn’t hurt the rich people but the middle class folks like the data entry person. The ones most in need of a job.
You constantly advocate for this notion that all corporation can fall into these silly childish generalizations. You do so with scant knowledge of how the economy works. At the same time you mock and scorn Bush for making the same kinds of generalizations in foreign policy. Bizarre. Simply bizarre.