Does Corporate Money Lead to Political Corruption?

[bemildred]

FYI.

---

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy noted in his opinion that no evidence was marshaled in 100,000 pages of legal briefs to show that unrestricted campaign money ever bought a lawmaker’s vote. And even after Congress further tightened the rules with the landmark McCain-Feingold law in 2002, banning hundreds of millions of dollars in unlimited contributions to the political parties, public trust in government fell to new lows, according to polls.

---

“There is no evidence that stricter campaign finance rules reduce corruption or raise positive assessments of government,” said Kenneth Mayer, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “It seems like such an obvious relationship but it has proven impossible to prove.”

---

Supporters of the restrictions point to Britain to show that governments can police corruption without imperiling free speech. Britain started regulating political spending as far back as 1883 and has tightened the rules steadily ever since.

---

Opponents of restrictions, on the other hand, point out that Australia barely regulates political money. Individuals and corporations can give without limit. Parties can spend freely. And there is not much disclosure about who gives what to whom. But political corruption has not threatened a vibrant democracy there.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/weekinreview/24kirkpatrick.html

[FrenchieCat]

1. Is Blixen a reindeer?

[bemildred]

6. It did occur to me that we have a new replacement for the bear in the woods here.

:thumbsup:

[verges]

16. Do you mean Blitzen? or Vixen? nt

[CJCRANE]

2. _

[C_Lawyer09]

3. Fascinating Question

It makes me answer with a question, though I realize this trait is often annoying. If Govt. were more transparent, as recently promised, would all the money matter? I have this to say, by way of example. The Swiftboat Veterans for Truth commercial that torpedoed the Kerry campaign, was debunked ASAP! Why didn't the media make this known? If we weren't saddled with a subservient and compliant media, all this money, PACS and lobbying wouldn't matter much.

Look at how long the US media listed to Achmed Chalabi run his yap, spewing disinformation. I personally don't agree with the Supreme Court Decision, but in my mind lack of clarity and information is the enemy. A citizen shouldn't have to spend his/her time on fact finding missions to find out what is a bald faced lie.

It's pretty damn telling, when one considers, according to Thomas Franks book, "The Wrecking Crew" that there is a revolving door to the tune of 50% between congress and the lobbying houses on K street. Seems like the media doesn't feel it can report "facts" anymore without an opposing counterpoint. I guess in an effort to appear non-partisan? Hell, our current system is so hard to follow, with all the riders, pork, and sweetheart deals, such as that promised to Ben Nelson, it makes me feel like this decision is just a little rotten icing on an already nasty cake.

[bemildred]

8. Seems like a different issue.

The prevention of an informed electorate is possibly even more important than the matter of direct or indirect buying of politicians and policies. And one can argue that if one could effectively inform the electorate, than they would know about corruption and vote accordingly, or at least better. So OK.

But that is not the same thing as allowing unlimited use of money as a political bludgeon in elections. You can argue that violates equal protection, since the speech rights of the wealthy are much better protected, they have much better access to speech, than those of the homeless.

[Demeter]

14. The Game Is to Indoctrinate, Propagandize, NOT Inform

An informed populace would make for a totally different game. And HOW does one Indoctrinate and Propagandize?


Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?


With bucketloads of corporate cash to buy up the media and all the airtime.

[bemildred]

15. So? I was being polite. nt

[C_Lawyer09]

18. Case in point

Swiftboat Veterans for Truth

[C_Lawyer09]

17. Can't argue that logic

I don't see a corporation as deserved, and/or don't think the founding fathers intended free speech under the first amendment to cede carte blanche access and power, like this will. Because as you succinctly said, they are already better protected as individuals. I guess my point is that: To the extent that we've already seen special interests dominate the political landscape, I don't see this decision as making that great of an impact in "actuality", though I do see it as yet one more slip down an already slippery slope, insofar as politics, and the impact of a constituency made up of individual voters.

[bemildred]

19. Well, I agree, to a point anyway.

It doesn't change the tilt of the table all that much. However I expect a big political fuss because it challenges the parties. Politicians won't need party support and money so much if they can get unlimited amounts of it in other ways, so it will undermine party control. So I expect the two national parties will collude to change it back. If that does not occur, it will lead to changes in the ruling elites, some folks put out to pasture, others taking over.

[bemildred]

9. I would think that the proper use of money in politics is an interesting line of thought too.

I tend towards short, 100% publically funded elections with 100% equal access to media for all, and some form of petition process to get into the race. I.e. you get X signatures and you get a slot. Of course the signatures will be bought, but that won't get you much by itself.

[atreides1]

4. I guess Justice Kennedy is suffering from Dementia

•Thomas Dale DeLay, Republican Representative from Texas 22nd District was indicted on criminal conspiracy and money laundering.

•William Jennings Jefferson, Democratic Representative from Louisiana 2nd District, named as an unindicted co-conspirator by prosecutors in connection with the Brent Pfeffer’s guilty plea to bribery charges.

•Randall Cunningham, Republican U.S. Representatives from California 50th District, pleaded guilty on Federal conspiracy and tax evasion charges


For someone who has law clerks working for him one would think that Justice Kennedy would have at least looked at these real cases to show that his assumption that corporate money doesn't lead to corruption is crap.

[bemildred]

11. I think he's just a mediocre mind without much courage or conviction.

Like a male Harriet Miers sort of. The "swing vote". I was kind of surprised he got to write the opinion, but maybe that was because nobody else wanted to hold the bag, so they suckered him, you know, like being "Permanent Latrine Orderly"?

[jwirr]

12. Also, why was it prohibited in the 70s? What was happening that made

it necessary to limit it?

[depakid]

5. "Opponents... point to Australia"

That's a dishonest comparison (and the reporter should have known as much).

Australian elections last six weeks- not years, there's no primary process (candidates are preselected by their parties to stand) voting is mandatory- with turnout at around 97% and the nation hasn't cultivated a culture of lies in its media that's not only deemed acceptable- but is expected and rewarded.

In addition- and this is perhaps the key point, what passes for routine political behavior in America would land an Aussie poli or government workers in prison- or at the very least they'd be sacked from their position.

[Guilded Lilly]

7. "That" kind of evidence is hardly

made available,ever.

When VISABLE disenfranchisement of everyday voters runs rampant without any PROVABLE evidence, you can bet that EVIDENCE of this kind will never become written or provable either...and is probably out there with that solid evidence of WMDs in Iraq...you know...in the Land of the Lost Sock.

[ezmerelda39]

10. Supreme Court recent decision.

Is there anything in the Constitution or any other law that would prevent a Class Action suit against the Supreme Court by the citizen of the United States? If not, I would recommend Eliot Spitzer to represent us with every citizen chipping in one dollar for Our Defense of Democracy.

[burning rain]

13. Answer: Not if you're Mitch McConnell (Senate's #1 advocate of unregulated $ in politics).

Which begs the question, Why doesn't corporate money corrupt Mitch McConnell? Answer: Because he's 100% scummy from the get-go and can't sink any further.

[CatholicEdHead]

20. Money can lead to corruption anywhere at anytime

It is not just restricted to corporate funds.

[salguine]

21. No. Corporate money IS political corruption.

[The Backlash Cometh]

22. It's so damn obvious.

Look, government is composed of people. Even City staffers who should know better have been caught showing favoritism for people who "support" their programs. i.e. donations. This is a common mentality among people. "Donate to my cause and I'll support yours." This is the prevalent thinking among local people. Where it shouldn't prevail is in government.

Look over Scalia's personal opinions. He believes that this form of rule is normal. Some of the controversial things he's done indicates that he's well into this form of patronage.

[Gregorian]

23. Only if politicians alter their behavior to receive it.

If it modifies behavior, then it is either helping or hindering the will of the people. If Microsoft gives cash, it's probably for a democratic cause. But if Exxon does the same, it's probably for something environmentally negative, and mostly against the best interest of the people. I wonder if that's too simple an answer.

[FrenchieCat]

24. yes