Travelling home from work yesterday, I was listening to reports of, and a discussion about, the Kyoto agreement and President Bush’s reluctance to sign up to it on behalf of the US.
A speaker made the point that in the 120 days since he was elected, GWB had ‘repaid’ the organisations and individuals who funded his election by making life easier for them… relaxing legislation, backing off on issues that could make life ‘difficult’ for corporate America, sliding in the odd tax concession (you get the picture).
The cost to corporate USA of agreeing to Kyoto’s conditions would be in excess of $300 billion and there is no way that GWB would repay his ‘funding committee’ by laying that bill on them.
Over here (UK) there was quite a debate some months prior to our recent election on the question of contributions to the political parties. The arguement being that having received substantial sums in support of election expenses, politicians may just be swayed a little when they plot their policies and strategies. What would be put first in line… the interests of the nation or the vested interests of the providers of the dosh?
Now, I’m not arguing that there is any evidence that any of the above accusations are proved or that indeed anything untoward has happened either in the USA or the UK elections as yet. Proving the link here is probably difficult and the debate so far is clearly based on opinions and viewpoints. There also seems to be some disagreement about the actual sums of money involved.
However, I just got to thinking… it isn’t unreasonable to suggest that eventually (if it hasn’t already happened) someone will be elected to high office and that they will put the interests of the ‘dosh providers’ ahead of any others.
The prospect of a Prime Minister or a US President who is essentially a puppet of a Global Corporation, or of a cartel of them, fills me with a degree of trepidation.
The modern political campaign consumes vast and increasing sums of dosh. If the trend continues, the degree to which those elected feel ‘obligated’ will increase.
Nations essentially disappear and we all end up being ruled by a soda-pop company, a car manufacturer, an oil company and a software developer.
So my point… should all political sponsorship be curtailed and replaced by some sort of central funding which is set and managed by an independant, scrutinised body? I’m interested in the arguements and the reasoning.
If Yes… then how could this be done? If No… how do we safeguard the common interest versus the vested?