Slashdot Mirror
Pay to Play the U.S. Way
Thu Anon Coward writes "There's an article on CNN.com that finally shows proof that corporations actually demand access to politicians for contributing $$$. And that political parties promise access based on how much the corporations "donate". Microsoft donated money on the condition that they be seated next to "Sen. (Paul) Coverdell or leadership, Commerce Committee or Judiciary Committee," according to a GOP memo. The memo added Microsoft did not want to sit with Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a major critic." How can we fight this? Write letters to the companies saying we won't buy their products because of their undue influence? You think the politicians will actually listen if we write them instead?" The campaign finance debate is probably the most important political issue in the U.S. right now. You should pay attention, even if you hate politics.
Two Words: Soft money.
TODO: Something witty here...
Unfortunately, this sort of thing is not new. Remember that before their company self-destructed, Enron executives had repeatedly met with Dick Cheney while the Bush administration's energy policy was being drafted. Details of those meetings still haven't been disclosed, and Cheney refuses to do so, using the defence that forcing politicians to disclose the details of such meetings would stifle politicians from doing their job.
What he actually means by this, of course, is that if politicians aren't allowed to keep their backroom deals with corporations secret, then they won't be able to have secret backroom deals with corporations anymore. Having to behave like honest politicians is clearly unacceptable to the likes of Cheney and Bush.
There are limits on what individuals or Political Action Committees(PACS) can give to candidates directly. Firthermore, Unions and Corporations are expressly FORBIDDEN from direct donations. However, until recently, there was a loophole. Corporations, unions, and individuals were able to give unlimited donations of so-called 'Soft Money' by channeling the money through donations to Political Parties instead of directly to candidates. As of election day, a new law is in effect, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (better known to many as McCain-Feingold or Shays-Meehan) which BANS soft money contributions at the federal level. However, many critics have observed, correctly, that the money is now being funneled to the states as the parties search for new loopholes. Furthermore, over the summer the FEC (Federal Election Comission) In the rulemaking process for the new law, Gutted many of the restrictions originally present. The law is a shell of what it could have been. There is also the standing court challenge against the BCRA that is currently in Federal appeals court. It WILL go to the supreme court as soon as this formality is through. More information on this and more can be found at http://www.commoncause.org http://www.opensecrets.org http://www.democracy21.org and http://www.publiccampaign.org
We have a similar thing here in the U.S. The Green Party. Many people would argue that they are a "special interest" group. I would argue that any group can be labeled a "special Interest" the question is really what special interests are on my side?
The major political parties thrive on this sort of dishonest practice. There should be NO donations to political parties at all. All election campaigns should be funded from tax-payers money. The people want democracy and the only way to get it is to pay for it. This will not sit well with the major political parties because they know that winning an election at the moment is simply a matter of marketing. The most money and the best marketing means winning the election. That has to stop. No more 'donations' from Israel, Microsoft or the deforestation companies. Write to (or go and see as I am doing on the 16th) your local member and tell them why you are removing support from them, and who is willing to change the system (here in Australia we have the Socialist Alliance and the Green parties who are on the ball on this issue). And write to the companies that make donations and tell them why you don't buy their products - because doing so corrupts you government. This is the only way short of a violent revolution that we can effect change. Do it now or lose the option and watch your country become a police state protecting the interests of those with the most money.
Indeed a quick google of contribution limits lead me to the following info:
Individual Citizens may contribute the following per year (at maximum)
1) $1,000 to any Canidate or Canidate comittee
2) $20,000 to any National Party
3) $5,000 to any other political comitee
4) A cap of $25,000 per year between all combined contributions.
So, while you and I can "Buy" $25,000 of senator, Microsoft is not limited in it's ability to buy shares of a political-whore?
Not only do they have an effective monopoly on operating systems, they (along with other corporations) have been able to make the $25,000 shares of your average citizen look like pennies that get discarded on the city street because they're not worth the effort to pick up after they fall from your pocket.
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Compare the goals of the green party to the socialist party and they're basically the same thing.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
The richest man in the Senate right now is Kerry, a democrat, who BTW is running for President in 2004. He has his fingers in more big company tills than half the of the Senate combined. Likewise for Clinton and Daschle.
No one is doing it more than anyone else, and to presume so is detrimental to our progress.
Open Secrets is absolutely the BEST source of information on who has bought who in our political system.
KNOW WHO OWNS YOUR CONGRESSMAN.
The soft money Laundromat over at CommonCause.org also has a good deal of information for the would-be informed citizen.
Even in New Zealand, where we don't generally have this problem, corruption of the process is creeping in. The local rich peoples' part, called ACT, regularly gets the most money (despite having generally poor electoral results: oddly enough, most people are underwhelmed by a manifesto that would only be good for a narrow range of the population).
However, many of the wealthy people who give money to ACT are apparently afraid of having their donations being published for reasons that are unclear to me; since there's a $5000 disclosure limit, a local law firm whose partners are pro-ACT helped people around this by taking donors' money, and then having the staff of the company make $4999 donations.
(Ironically enough a number of people who support ACT whine about more socially oriented companies such as Stephen Tindell's Warehouse chain getting involved in philanthropy; supporters such as economist Gareth Morgan trot out the line that companies becoming involved in social/political action are "stealing from owners"; Mr Morgan was rather silent on this little trick).
One of the problems with these sorts of regulations is that the unscrupulous will go to considerable lengths to evade the law and have the resources to help them: consider the aforementioned example, where secretaries, junior lawyers, and other employees are press-ganged into evading the law and supporting their bosses' favourite party.
This is a fairly common misconception that political parties "reward" those that supported them financially.
You'll probably find that the reason that a group gives donations to a party is because they feel that the party thinks in a similar way to they do.
Did you read the linked article? They quote documents that damn-near say they'll let you write your own laws for a quarter million. For example:
Nicholson enclosed a copy of the RNC's health care proposals and asked Heimbold for his suggestions to improve it. He also included an outline of GOP lawmakers were doing involving health care legislation.
In the next paragraph, Nicholson encouraged Bristol-Myers -- already a GOP donor -- to give $250,000
Guess what? Bristol-Myers gave $291,200
READ IT! The letters and internal memos are disgusting! We're not talking about corporations supporting parties and candidates that they happen to agree with, we are talking about selling political influence. Why else would all these companies hand equal amounts of soft money to BOTH parties?
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Why not outlaw this bs right away?
Treat every gift made to a politician or a political party as an attempted bribe. Afaik, many european nations allready have laws like these.
Of course there are reasons the biggest parties don't want this to happen, but if enough people slam their fists in the table and say "Enough is enough!"?
---
The combined human population is enough to feed every living tiger for app. 28000 years.
You can also check how it's done in various provinces. Coming from Québec, I can tell you that only individuals are allowed to contribute to political parties here: corporations, lobbies, etc. are not (but members of those obviously can). So Microsoft (or Disney) couldn't give money to any party, but Bill, Steve and whoever is the CEO of Disney can. I think the yearly limit (for provincial contributions) is CAN$3000 by party.
For those saying "But then how do you advertise?", the answer comes in three parts. First, if you score a minimum at the polls (I don't remember exactly, maybe 20%), part of your expenses are refunded by the government. Second, the TV stations are mandated to give free air-time (during political campaigns) to each official parties (no single candidates have TV spots because TV is not local enough, and no office is directly elected as the president of the governors). Third, I'm pretty sure there's a cap (by candidate, or by party) for the expenses during the whole political campaign.
BTW, here in Canada federal parties usually have a weaker link to provincial parties than in the States. For exemple, the Liberal Party of Canada has no link (other than the name and some concepts) to the Liberal Party of Québec, to the point that the current leader of that party comes from the Progressive-Conservative Party of Canada, which was (it's really weak ATM) the other national party. So you need to redo all your "shopping" in the provinces as well.
Hawaii: 14
Kentucky: 14 (Age 16 if the man is 21 or older)
South Carolina: 14
Mississippi: 16 (If the female is over 12, the statute applies only to virgins)
Sources:
http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2243.html