Democracy for sale to the highest bidder.

Great Debates
1

In theory, we choose our leader by democratic election, and then they go represent us, voting according to what they think is best for our country. All politicians want as many people as possible to be happy, well educated, well employed, and living in a safe clean environment. Sure, they may disagree a bit on the means to the end, and perhaps on some of the details of the picture, but they all are fighting for the same thing right?

Wrong. Many politicians simply sell their votes to the highest bidder. Big money buys its way to more money. This is how our wonderful democracy really works.

The Public Interest Research Group,

http://www.pirg.com
provides scorecards on almost every major state and federal legislator. They pretty clearly illuminate exactly who votes in favor of big money corporations and special interest groups EVERY TIME and who votes in favor of a sincere interest in the general good.

For example,
http://www.pirg.org/score2002/washington.html
provides a scorecard of 2002 congressional votes for Washington State Senate and House Reps.
If you read through the 2002 votes, you will see that many of them are clearly a case of some congressmen trying to give Big Money oil companies freedom to make more money at the expense of our natural environment AND SAFETY. Item 6 is particularly clear: It would allow oil drilling companies to pollute millions of gallons of water by temporarily lifting clean water regulations. Who would possibly vote for such a thing except someone who is in the oil industries pocket.

  1. Safe Drinking Water/Oppose Exemptions for Oil and Gas: As a part of the energy debate, Sens. Bingaman (D-NM) and Inhofe (R-OK) offered an amendment that weakens Safe Drinking Water Act requirements in order to expand oil and gas exploration and development using hydraulic fracturing. In order to extract oil and gas, hydraulic fracturing injects the ground with water, sand, and toxic chemicals, including benzene, xylene and toluene, which in even small quantities can contaminate million of gallons of water. The Bingaman-Inhofe amendment blocks some regulation for the duration of new studies and potentially suspends existing drinking water regulations at the end of the studies, despite the fact that courts already have ruled that hydraulic fracturing should be regulated. On March 7, 2002, the Senate passed the amendment 78-21. (Roll Call #43) PUBLIC INTEREST VOTE: NO

I am not claiming that PIRG is the ultimate authority on what is a right or wrong vote on every piece of legislation, but they seem to be evaluating every vote based upon a sincere attempt at honest judgment of the good of our nation.

Many of our politicians clearly demonstrate that they vote according to where big money wants them to vote. This is only natural since our elections are determined by special interest money, and televised political ads.

So my question is: Why? Why do we let this happen? What could possibly be done to stop our country from being controlled by big money? I haven’t said anything new here. Most of us know that big money owns congress. These score cards blatantly illustrate this. But people continue to vote mercenary politicians into office.

I am sincerely asking for solutions.

I would settle for a congress full of people with really bad ideas, but how can we settle for a congress that doesn’t even use their own minds to try and pass good bills, but rather act as simple puppets of the wealthy.

2

It’s not just big money. It’s also blocs like unions and seniors.

Campaign Finance Reform won’t work. One way or another the affected groups will find ways to get money to the politicians.

A hypothetical solution would be to make government less powerful, so there would be less of a payoff to supporting politicians. Of course, this isn’t going to happen…

3

Yeah, but that’s freedom of association - I can’t see a problem with that.

If I have the right to participate in and influence the political process, then I should have the right to band together with like-minded persons to do so more efficiently. AARP, the NRA, and the AFL-CIO are simply a consolidation of assorted subsets of ‘we, the people’.

Responding to the OP:

In my perfect world, for-profit corporations would not be protected by the First Amendment, nor would other organizations that receive substantial funding directly or indirectly from for-profit corporations.

There are a few basic reasons for this:

  1. The nation exists for the benefit of its citizens, not its corporations. Its citizens are the ones with the franchise, and the right to make and influence political decisions.

  2. In the political marketplace, the competition between corporations and citizens is fundamentally, structurally uneven.

  3. Corporations will not go unrepresented in the political marketplace. They can be spoken for by their investors, their executives, their workers, their customers, and any other persons who believe they derive benefit from those corporations. Such persons can even band together to fund nonprofits, which would be protected by the First Amendment, to represent their interest in a corporation’s or industry’s well-being.

The main point that needs to be addressed here is #2, and I’ve already done so here, but I’ll quote essential part:

4

Brilliant insight RTFirefly.

Ban political contributions from for profit companies. I think that would be a very effective step.

Where would you draw the line though? Would you allow corporations to donate money to any non-profit groups?

I am trying to imagine how this would work, because it would potentially cut off the income source of tons of good organizations like National Public Radio, The Red Cross, etc…

Perhaps there would have to be a careful distinction between political non-profits and non-political non-profits if that is feasible.

5

Ok, well I guess you made that distinction already. Any organization that receives “substantial” funding from for profit organizations.

Cool. This would require a constitutional amendment huh? Scary… But if that’s what it takes…

6

Here in North Carolina, Erskine Bowles and Elizabeth Dole are conducting one of the nation’s most expensive Senate races. Given that so many North Carolinians have lost jobs recently and that so many local governments and non-profits have been forced to cut back on services, it really disgusts me to see these two millionaires spend gobs of money on attack ads. In my fantasy world, Dole and Bowles agree to give that money to North Carolina charities and conduct a lengthy series of public debates instead. Yeah, that’ll happen…

Sorry, I realized that was more of a rant than a constructive suggestion.

7

Why is it that a group of people can get together, call themselves the AARP, and have a representative from that group give large sums of money to a political cause so as to benefit the members of that group, but a company can’t have a representative (say, the CEO) give large sums of money to a political cause to benefit the member of the company? I think Microsoft is as much a “consolidation of assorted subsets of ‘we, the people’” in much the same way the NRA or AFL-CIO is.

Well, it would be a very effective step towards shifting the balance of power towards the democrats. Limiting the political clout of businesses without addressing the problem of huge contributions from, say, labor unions would be grossly unfair.

Generally speaking, I agree that there is a problem with politicians giving extra consideration to those who provide large contributions (both from businesses and from non-profits), but I don’t think the problem is as widespread as some would have you believe. For example, businesses give large sums of money to republican politicians, and republican politicians frequently pass legislation that benefits big businesses. This could be because of quid pro quos. Or it could be that the businesses give money to republicans because they know that republicans tend to share their economic beliefs more closely than democrats.

I think the question needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. If Microsoft gives money to Bob, and Bob proposes a bill that would help Microsoft, that’s not enough of an indictment to satisfy me. Did this bill exclusively help MS? Did it hurt the population overall? Was helping MS an express goal, or merely a side-effect? It’s not always cut-and-dried, but people tend to assume that if someone passes a bill that benefits business, it must’ve been a buy-off.

Yes, but frequently what benefits the corporations benefit the citizens. If MS grows and can now employ 1000 new employees, doesn’t that benefit the citizens?

True, but the competition between corporations and and giant non-profits is about even.
Jeff

8

I refer back to the OP. If you look through the congressional scorecards you will see what is pretty clearly congressmen voting for favors for big money oil conglomerates at the expense of clean water and our environment.

These are the bills that dominated a full year of congress. Hardly appears minor.

Why should money be the deciding factor in a politicians decision to vote one way or the other? Isn’t our ideal that the politician is voting the way they feel is in the best interest of the welfare of the public…so every citizen has a good education, a safe clean environment, a healthy and fair economic environment…

Why would or should a large contribution of money alter a vote?

The only thing a large organization of people really should be able to offer or threaten a politician with…is votes. Money should not even be a part of it.

So maybe what we really need is free air time and no organizational contributions at all to any campaign, with strict limits on individual contributions.

If an organization wants to convince a politician on an issue, then they should convince them with words and stats,…not money.

9

Money can get you in the door, but if you’re an idiot and don’t make a case as to how what you support will benefit people, you won’t get very far.

Remember, PIRG itself has it’s own biases. To take their first example, is allowing drilling in ANWR in the public interest? PIRG says no, and I personally agree with them there, but there are people who say that it is. The “public interest” isn’t itself a definate commodity. It’s a statement of political philosophy, and every group, every individual has his or her own ideas of what actions are in the public interest.

10

I think the big piece of the puzzle all of you folks are missing is that corporations = jobs and jobs = votes. Money is always a factor in everything.

11

Do you know for certain that the temporary lowering of standards for clean air and water were necessarily going to be harmful? If the standards were already overly strict, then lowering them may not be a bad thing, especially if the result is more jobs to people in the area as a result of the expansion of the companies that benefitted here. I honestly don’t know whether that particular bill was a good idea or not. However, based solely on the information on that page, it’s not obvious whether any of the measures were good or bad.

Our ideal is that a politician will act in the best interests of the citizens, tempered by what the citizens actually want, which is not always the same. How does a politician know if he’s doing a good job and pleasing his constituents? Votes don’t do him any good mid-term. He can rely on polls, direct communication, or… money. If lots of people are throwing cash his way, that’s a good sign that he’s pleasing those people. Also realize that such things as “healthy environment” and “good economic situation” are sometimes mutually exclusive. Every time a politician acts to improve one at the expense of the other, someone’s going to be telling him that he sold out to special interests.

I agree with you that it shouldn’t. However, I disagree with you about the frequency with which this happens. I’m sure it happens, yes - I live in California, and Gray Davis has taught me all about pay-for-play politics - but I don’t think it’s quite an epidemic, as you seem to believe.

Jeff

12

So a bunch of investors pool their money, take a giant risk and create wealth and jobs, and they can’t have their voices heard. A bunch of old people (AARP) get together and they can give as much as they want? Thanks, but no thanks.

Evil “Corporations” represent the desires and wills of their owners. Their owners, it turns out, are the people who own stocks, aka every person in this country with a 401k, IRA etc…

Your problem, as you illustrate it with your example of the drinking water/oil, is that some people disagree with you about where the public interest is. You think that that particular regulation is important, others think that relaxing it a little bit in favor of cheaper fuel is a compromise we should make. Where is the problem with that?

If you have evidence of people buying votes, I suggest you write a newspaper column and collect your Pulitzer Prize. Your vague illusions to big money owning the government prove nothing.

This is another favorite of mine, the old, “I think you are wasting your money. You should give it to charity.” line. Hmmm, you think all those people who work at TV channels and newspapers who depend on advertising money for their salaries and wages would like it if all those millions of dollars of money were not coming their way? It isn’t like the money is being burned you know.

13

It feels pretty odd for me to come here and defend corporatist interests and (shudder) Republicans, but I think that we have to acknowledge that at least some of the legislators the OP complains may not be just sell-outs. There are considerable numbers of intelligent, earnest people who sincerely believe that the long-term greater good is being served by many of those positions. For someome who considers capitalism a good thing, or at least a mostly good thing, many of those decisions are predicated on the idea of maintaining freedom of the market. That represents a deep philosophical basis for decisions that might seem callous and greed-motivated on the surface, but are taken in sincere belief that they will further the greater good in the long run.

14

I think I addressed that at some length in my post. If you’d explain where my argument breaks down, it would help me respond.

Hardly. You join AARP or the NRA or the Sierra Club because you know what they stand for on the issues, and you want to support them. You also generally have the opportunity to influence the direction the nonprofit is going in.

You buy stock in a corporation because you want a return on your investment. You may or may not know or care what its stand is on environmental legislation, the minimum wage, Third World sweatshops, or whatnot, and it’s not likely to tell you. And if you think owning stock will enable you to have even a modest voice in its decisions, think again: the corporation’s rules are not likely to be conducive to “shareholder democracy”.

The corporation makes its own choices, bound only by the effect on its stock price and bottom line. You are not joining with fellow citizens to make your voice more clearly heard; you are riding on the back of a creature whose life is independent of its shareholders, with interests of its own, and you’re just along for the ride.

Why would it be unfair? Labor unions represent groups of citizens on issues. Corporations are entities unto themselves, existing to make money by whatever means feasible, and not representing anyone but themselves. They are creations, not people. Why should they have a voice?

And the businesses give to Democrats too - and turn them into quasi-Republicans on economic issues by doing so. I regard that as serious.

So I’d say the problem is rather serious. Because of the influence of business contributions, we really only have one and a half parties: the Republicans and the Republicrats.

Absolutely it does. And those citizens are free to speak up for Microsoft, and in my hypothetical world, they’d be free to set up a nonprofit to speak up on its behalf.

Cite, please. For the reasons I’ve given above, there’s no reason to expect that it would be even. When the Sierra Club’s members give money to block development of the ANWR, they don’t get a cent in return. But if the oil companies one day break through and get the authority to drill up there, they will see a return on their investment (see above) that will pay for another twenty years of fighting to water down environmental regs. How much more uneven can you get?

Need remedial reading lessons, Rhum Runner?

15

Yeesh. Could a mod knock out an initial ****** in that post? Thanks.

16

My teacher says I read quite well for my age, thanks very much.

Ever heard of a shareholder’s meeting? Influence the direction of the nonprofit? You think granny has any say in what position AARP takes on Social Security?

This is just flat inaccurate. Why is my interest in making money less valid than someone else’s interest in the environment? One person’s special interest is the enviornment, my special interest is in maximizing the return on my investment and I excpect the corporations in which I own stock to give effect to my interests.

Also wrong. Corporations are creatures of their owners, who are people like you and me. Joe union member has as much voice in what the Teamster do as Joe stockholder has in what GE does. Where is the difference?

Can you say distinction without a difference?

Wrong again. Sierra Club members may not get money, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t getting value for their lobbying efforts. The rank and file SC member feels better knowing that wilderness is being preserved. That knowledge has an economic value to them.

17

I think that campaign finance reform misses the problem. The reason that so much money flows around in campaigns is because a significant portion of the American electorate choose to believe television ads rather than do some basic research themselves.

Laws like those proposed in the OP won’t cure voter apathy.

18

Since you, as a member of a labor union, cannot determine to what candidate your union gives money to, you caqn very easily find yourself (through mandatory dues) giving financial support to a candidate that you will not be voting for.

I see a major problem with that.

19

Brutus I am not sure that is still the rule. I believe a union member can opt to only pay such dues as go to collective bargaining activities. I may be wrong on this, so someone please correct me. If my reading skills weren’t so poor, I would try to find the answer myself. :smiley:

20

Well, looks like I was partly right. See ELLIS v. RAILWAY CLERKS, 466 U.S. 435 (1984)

In a union shop, workers may have to join the union, depending on the state. If you don’t have to join you may still need to pay dues to the union, but you do not have to pay that portion of the dues that go to political parties. Perhaps RTFirefly can correct me if I am wrong. :slight_smile: