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.
a friend of mine just started a new political party, The Patriot Party of Canada, and the biggest thing going for it is that it does not accept donations from corporations or special interest groups. Only time will tell whether he can succeed with it or not, but it shows that many people are getting the message. The response so far has not been negative, either.
Are there not limits set that a single person can donate to any single canidate? It was always my understanding that corperations were treated as if they were their own person. If there are indeed limts to contributions that an individual can make to any party/canidate/measure/whatnot, why should a corperate entity be allowed to make huge contributions (read:bribes) while individual citizens are limited in their ability to contribute?
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
But we're talking about two institutions (government and corporations) that are generally considered to be somewhat corrupt and untrustworthy. Then you throw in money. Politicians have power... they want money to get more power. Corporations have money... they want power so they can make more money... Seems like there's supply and demand here. Two groups have what each other want, and they're making agreements to facilitate the transfer.
Do I agree with it? No. Do I think it's right? No. But in a society where the acquisition of wealth and power are your primary goals, and things like charity, scholarship, helping others, doing the right thing, etc. are back burnered...what do you really expect? Those organizations are doing exactly what they're expected to do. I'm afraid we need more than a few laws to fix this one.
Suddenly, campaigning gets cheap! No more competition by who can afford the most attack ads during the 6pm news slot.
Then again, Swiss democracy is 500 years older than American democracy. I suppose it could take a while for the U.S., and Canada for that matter, to catch up... *sigh*... (I'm Canadian, but lived in Switzerland for 6 years).
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Wow... nice link. It should be noted that most of the top contributors are from labor unions to Democrats, although there appear to be far more corporations making smaller donations to Republicans.
You know though, the thing that scares me most about that list, is the companies or organizations that are listed as "on the fence". Those are the companies that don't really care who is in power - they are hedging their bets to ensure that they can get the support of whoever ends up winning.
This reprehensible behavior is not a recent phenomenon, nor was it started by Microsoft. If you looked you'd find that this is routine for many or most of the companies whose products you buy every day. It'd be easy for a large chunk of the Slashdot crowd to "stop" buying Microsoft products - but what about Bristol-Meyers-Squibb? What if Dell does this (and they probably do) - Will you stop buying their computers? How about other large companies like Monsanto, Ford, IBM?
This sort of behavior is so pervasive I don't think you could organize an effective boycott without being willing to starve to death. The only way it's likely to change is if we force the laws that allow this to be changed.
#DeleteChrome
The occasional individual candidate here in the States has made similar virtuous pledges to deny themselves corporate fundings. It's almost always a sure road to anonymity. If voters have never heard of you or your party, they won't vote for you.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Play the game too. Rather than wring your hands saying "but I pay taxes and I voted them into office", collectively "donate" to the campaign coffers. Buy your politician's ear back.
Think of it. If all of us citizens put our meager resources together we can finally have government on our side. I mean, it's our tax money that runs the government anyway. We've got more than enough (collectively) to make this work. Think of this as the "voluntary" tax we forgot to pay.
And if that doesn't work... REVOLT! (As if that's going to do you any good in this day and age)
Huh, I take it you're calling the republicans the "buddies of legalized bribery" because many were against campgin finance reform (limiting MY rights)?
While we're on the topic of corruption in politics how about Clinton and his infamous cash-for-clemency ring? Toricelli? hah. What about the foreign bribe iquiries into the DNC? What about DNC head, party McAuliffe--teamsters union money swap mean anything to you? I could go on...
You don't want a pure democracy. That's the equivalent of mob rule, where the majority rules and the minority and dissenting opinion is effectively squelched. The founders of the US of A went through great lengths to protect the minority opinion and, if I remember correctly, it wasn't until Woodrow Wilson that the nation was referred to as a democracy.
A republic on the other hand, insists that the law rules regardless of what the majority wants. This is not popular a lot of times. For example, the majority of people in the USA want to give up freedoms for security, but the Constitution is effectively slowing down, if not preventing, the complete elimination of our freedoms in favor of security. The times that you do see the Constitution being ignored, you're seeing a great example of true democracy in action.
This feels a bit impolite, I'm not American so perhaps I shouldn't mix in these discussions, but whatever :).
I think it should be like this: you are allowed to put money into campaigns if you are allowed to vote. Otherwise, the election is none of your business. Corporations are not allowed to vote.
Of course, corporations will then give money to individuals, who can give it to campaigns, etc. Outlaw that too.
Then, you get the problem that rich citizens will have more influence than poor citizens. That isn't right, they are equal, one isn't better than the other. So put a low cap on the allowed contributions (I believe that is already in place, though it could be lower).
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
except that the green party does not want state run production of goods, they want local production of goods. get rid of the corprate conglomerates and let the mom and pop places spring up...I guarontee that if that was to happen, the economy would have near full employment.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
It's not about shaping beliefs, it's about the impact on the country. MS's earnings, the taxes they pay, the salaries they pay, and all of the industries they effect make a *signifcant* impact on the economy. This cannot be ignored. Companies *do* have greater importance than individual people when it comes to politics, and like the original poster said, they should. If politicians didn't give MS access (no pun intended), and MS say, got pissed off and moved overseas, the US economy would be up shit creek without a paddle. On the other hand, another Joe Blow or two that's pissed off ain't gonna make that big of a difference.
Whether or not their impact is negative is your opinion, and you know what people say about opinions and assholes...
Here's a reform proposal guaranteed to piss off anyone with a vested interest in the current system:
1) Only registered voters in a particular region can contribute to candidates, campaigns or parties in that region (country, district, state, nation).
2) There are no limits to contributions, but they must be from registered voters.
3) Corporations and unions are not registered voters, and cannot contribute to any candidate or party. Only individual human beings can register to vote.
4) Corporations and unions may not direct or command any employee, member or executive to contribute to any political organization or campaign.
5) Registered voters may join an association of other registered voters for the purpose of pooling funds.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Continue to be ever so deluded, that way those of us in power remain so. Most of you aren't aware that all donations are reported and you can see them online, even. Of course the reality is, is that this is a Republic, not a mob oriented Democracy. As such, those who have money/power should have a bigger voice in government - it was deliberatley made to be so, read the Constitution and then you will get it. See, the truth is, is that you underlings SHOULD NOT have much of a voice, look how you conduct your own squalid lives. Sheesh, you'd think after over 200 years you pleebs would get it.
Uh, no.
Socialism refers to an economic system where the capital (the "means of production") are controled by those who actually do the work (the "workers"). It comes in both state-socialist (e.g., Marxism) and libertarian-socialist flavors.
It does not refer to an economic system where capital is concentrated into the hands of a few, and a few inadequate "safety nets" keep the people from beheading their corporate masters.
FDR saved capitalism from itself. He - and the the USA - was no way, no how, a socialist,.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I hesitate to ask this because I realize that most responses will be devoid of any reason, but why is this a big deal? Did you actually think that people/companies donate money just to be nice people? Of course not! The only reason anybody would donate any money to a political candidate or party is to support something they agree with or think would be beneficial to them. Why should it be any different?
If I believe that candidate X is more closely aligned with something I agree with or want done, my first amendment rights allow me to support that candidate. This is exactly what Microsoft and every other company out there has done.
The campaign finance debate is probably the most important political issue in the U.S. right now.
Besides the terrorists who are willing to smuggle box cutters onto airliners and crash them into heavly populated buildings. Oh, and besides the leader of Iraq who has sworn the US as his enemy and is developing nuclear and biological weapons to use against us. But I guess those things are not really that important compared to how much money Microsoft donated to a particular candidate.
Actually, according to the World Bank's Corruption Index, Canada scores a 9.2, making it the 5th least corrupt country in the world; compare to the US's 7.5, making it the 16th least.
adding light to an interesting proposal (Copying parent text), by AC:
that directly addresses this issue. The author, Dr. Cushman, has advanced in
Fascism n. A philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises
a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism.
New College Edition of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Copyright 1969, Houghton Mifflen.
There is an essay that is currently being hosted at: http://brutusworks.com/politics/bribe_bazaar.htm
his thinking since the essay was written and is now trying to set up a web site
(BreakTheLink.org) that can be used to coordinate the efforts of volunteers
willing to fight. This is how: For fascism to thrive, there has to be a monetary
link between corporations and politicians. Breaking this link is the key to
recovering our Republic. There are two paths that can be taken to fight political
bribery. First, there are 24 states (and the District of Columbia) that have
provisions for direct citizen democracy in their constitutions. A citizen initiative
something like the following pursued in these states would be very useful (language
for Florida):
We The Citizens of Florida hold that those elected to represent and govern
the entire body politic within Florida cannot accept bribes from individuals
or organizations with special interests from within said body politic without
accruing the taint of dishonor and the burden of bias; and further, that the
offering of bribes to elected representatives in order to influence the specific
ends of said individuals or organizations, or the accepting of said bribes by
said elected representatives constitutes Treason to the remaining constituents
of said body politic and shall be punished as such under the felony laws of
the State of Florida. For the purposes of this Amendment, the following expressions
shall have the indicated definitions and may be used in the singular or plural.
Bribe means: Anything given or serving to persuade or induce. Bribery
means: the act or practice of giving or accepting a bribe. For the purposes
of this Amendment a bribe does not include information or media necessary to
transmit information as long as said media has a monetary value less than $100.
Treason means: the betrayal of a trust or confidence; a breach of
faith; treachery. For the purposes of this Amendment, a charge of bribery shall
be construed in two parts: the first part shall be a question of the fact of
a transfer of money or other value from an individual or special interest group
to a public official. All parties shall be presumed innocent of said charge
of monetary or other value transfer until proven guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt. The second part of a bribery charge concerns the fact of whether a proven
transfer of money or other value is influencing and thus an act of Bribery and
Treason. the burden of proof for a public official or individual or special
interest group accused of bribery shall lie with the accused to prove beyond
a reasonable doubt that money or value accepted is not influencing.
It needs work, I know, but you get the idea. The second possible approach is described in the essay referenced above.