# Politicians: Helplessly corrupt? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 12, 2003, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politicians-helplessly-corrupt/212895 "2003-11-12T20:39:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Dob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b2d939/32.png) [@Dob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dob)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politicians-helplessly-corrupt/212895/1 "2003-11-12T20:39:15Z")
Invariably when discussing politics someone always seems to mention how all politicians are corrupt and just looking out for themselves…and of course they are just a bunch of liars. I myself dont subscribe to this notion. But I do wonder what others may think. So to my debate: 1. Do honest men/women enter politics at all? Or does the process of politics corrupt even the most honest? 2. Do politicians really put the interest of the people first and their own second? 3. Are their any true “crusaders” left in politics? And if so, who do you think that would be? I sadly have never met or known a politician at any level or government, so its tough for me to make up my mind on these issues. I would like to hear from anyone who on a regular basis actually interacts with a politician and what they think. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2003, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politicians-helplessly-corrupt/212895/2 "2003-11-12T22:37:33Z")
I don’t work with politicians, but my husband does. From what he’s told me, I think a good portion of politicians sincerely want to change things for the better, and have all sorts of good intentions. However, once in office, the intelligent ones see all of the reasons why their solutions won’t work, and they slowly become disillusioned. The not-so-smart politicians forge ahead stubbornly, then spend the rest of their term in damage control, which seriously limits their abilities to get things done. The constituents tend to blame them for everything that’s wrong with their country/state/city, even when the politician had nothing to do with it, or has no realistic way of solving the problem. Secondly, people seem to expect something to be done about problems _now._ Real solutions to problems can’t always make an immediate difference. People also tend to reject planning for the future in exchange for something they can have now, making it difficult if not impossible to get support for long-range plans which have no immediately discernable benefit. The combination of impotence and frustration at being blamed for everything can lead to cynicism and apathy. Sometimes, it seems like the more starry-eyed a politician was when first elected, the more bitter they can become. ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2003, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politicians-helplessly-corrupt/212895/3 "2003-11-13T14:53:41Z")
Politicians also need to reelect themselves in order to continue “their good work”… this is when they start to worry more about their “careers” and less about working for the people. Afterall you need money and political support in order to get reelected… ``` I agree with the above posters... and I sadly feel that politicians will always be mostly be in it for power and selfish reasons. Even if they are honest they can hardly fight a system of pork barrel and exchange of favors. ``` ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2003, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politicians-helplessly-corrupt/212895/4 "2003-11-13T15:07:12Z")
To be in a position to do good you need votes. The number of people voting is dwindling absurdly in the US, especially among certain groups. So if you feel strongly about helping a certain group who doesn’t vote, you must seek the votes of a different group. Now, if you are _honest_ and tell this new group that you wish to help another group and actually _harm_ the group whose votes you seek, you will lose. Hence, all “crusaders” must be dishonest if they wish to help groups who don’t vote. ---
**Author:** ![Dob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b2d939/32.png) [@Dob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dob)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2003, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politicians-helplessly-corrupt/212895/5 "2003-11-13T15:40:01Z")
> [@](#): > > The number of people voting is dwindling absurdly in the US, especially among certain groups. I agree with you here, but I wonder if the reason is perception that all politicians are corrupt, so why bother?? Anyone know if the number of voters in the US is smaller than in other countries? Do other countries have a different view of the politicians?? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2003, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politicians-helplessly-corrupt/212895/6 "2003-11-13T16:19:05Z")
[Voter turnout](http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/dem_par_ele_tur) (including presidential elections despite its title). US~45%, UK~75%, Italy~82%, Guinea-Bisseau~129% (??!) ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2003, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politicians-helplessly-corrupt/212895/7 "2003-11-13T16:21:09Z")
Sorry, UK~57%, not 75% ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2003, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politicians-helplessly-corrupt/212895/8 "2003-11-13T16:28:06Z")
The only thing to do is vote for and support the corrupt bastards who are corrupt for your causes, or the less so for the causes you despise. ---
**Author:** ![Dob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b2d939/32.png) [@Dob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dob)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2003, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politicians-helplessly-corrupt/212895/9 "2003-11-13T16:30:38Z")
Wow, thanks **SentientMeat** , after going through that site I am now thourghly depressed!! how the hell did the US become LAST in Presidential turnout??? sad…truly sad. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2003, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politicians-helplessly-corrupt/212895/10 "2003-11-13T16:32:50Z")
I am always amazed at the number of politicians who spend the majority of their lives in public office and then wind up retiring wealthy. Hard to imagine them getting that way strictly on the public payroll. Now I’m not saying it’s a result of flat-out graft. More likely is an insidious form of insider trading. You know, like politicians who just happen to own a farm where the new freeway is being built. Or who get a hot stock tip from a lobbyist. That sort of thing. ---
**Author:** ![spingears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ebca7d/32.png) [@spingears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spingears)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2003, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politicians-helplessly-corrupt/212895/11 "2003-11-13T17:31:06Z")
Early in the century before last the voting public found that they could vote for vote buying politicians to fund this that and the other cause the voters wanted. How do you think any of the gov’t. programs have gotten so out of hand other than by politicians promising more and more to the voterw who vote for them, get them elected and morre and more money flows out of the public teasury and the working citizen gets the tax bill. Follow the money and/or the agenda to see who is 'doing’who. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2003, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politicians-helplessly-corrupt/212895/12 "2003-11-13T20:44:05Z")
Getting elected (for whatever purpose) takes money. People With Money want favors for giving that money. For reasons both honorable (“I’m just keeping my word”) and dishonorable (“I want to keep the cash flowing”), politicians will grant favors to the folks who give them money. Whether a politician is “corrupt” or not depends on how one feels about those People With Money… ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2003, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politicians-helplessly-corrupt/212895/13 "2003-11-13T21:24:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dob \* > \*\*Wow, thanks **SentientMeat** , after going through that site I am now thourghly depressed!! > > how the hell did the US become LAST in Presidential turnout??? sad…truly sad. \*\* It’s not necessarly a bad sign. I could just as easily mean that people are content with the way things are. You need to dig into the numbers and find the real reason. I’d bet that even a lot of people who say “they’re all corrupt, why bother voting” are using that as a rationalization-- they’re too lazy to vote, which is exactly the same thing as saying they’re content with the way things are. As to the OP, I think it’s as simple as the old saying (with my slight modification): **Power currupts. Absoulte Power currputs absolutely. And there’s a sliding scale inbetween.** Sure, people with good intentions go into politics. But if you want to reduce the overall level of corruption, the easiest and most reliable way to do that is to reduce the amount of power given to elected officials. The Founding Fathers had some great ideas (a written constitution, seperation of powers, etc.), but there’s no reason we can’t create new institutional structures that limit the corrupting aspect of power even more. And when all else fails, you can simply scale back the scope of government in the first place. But you’re not going to have it both ways. You can’t dangle a nice juicy carrot in front of someone and simply **hope** they won’t take it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2003, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politicians-helplessly-corrupt/212895/14 "2003-11-13T21:36:03Z")
Posted by **springears:** > [@](#): > > How do you think any of the gov’t. programs have gotten so out of hand other than by politicians promising more and more to the voterw who vote for them, get them elected and morre and more money flows out of the public teasury and the working citizen gets the tax bill. But it doesn’t work that way. I mean if you’re talking about the poor people who benefit most from welfare and other public programs, those are the very people who **don’t vote.** Their voter turnout is even lower than that of the “working citizen.” At present, American politicians are corrupt because they have to be. They don’t accept bribes as such, they accept campaign contributions from the rich and the corporations and the corporate PACs and lobbying outfits – and such favors must be repaid, or you won’t get contributions when you run for re-election. Sometimes a given corporation will fund both sides in an election, just to make sure the winner will owe them a favor. Politicians cannot opt out of this system; if they try, they will be turned out of office by a better-funded challenger. All this happens because running for public office is a lot more expensive than it used to be. To win an election, you need TV and radio time; volunteers knocking on doors won’t do the trick. In modern American politics, the pure and honest are mostly filtered out before they reach any high office; campaign-based corruption is simply an inevitable cost of doing business. If you want to do something about this, work for campaign finance reform. Check out [http://www.commoncause.org/](http://www.commoncause.org/). If you want a real, honest “crusader” in politics, check out Dennis Kucinich, [http://www.kucinich.us/](http://www.kucinich.us/), who is running for the Democratic nomination for president (and in most polls, is running dead last, in company with Sharpton and Braun). Kucinich’s worst enemies have never accused him of any dishonesty. He has always stuck to his principles, even when this harmed his career. When he was mayor of Cleveland, 1977-79, he refused to buckle to corporate pressure to sell the city electric utility, Municipal Lights, to its private competitor, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., even though at that time the city was deeply in debt. Cleveland’s banks, which had a financial interest in CEI, gave him an umltimatum: Sell Muny Light or they would send the city into default. He didn’t, they did, and Kucinich lost his re-election bid, and did not start to make a political comeback until 1994. You might or might not agree with his decision in this instance, but you can’t deny this was the action of a man of principle. (For more on this story see [http://www.kucinich.us/aboutdennis.htm#down.)](http://www.kucinich.us/aboutdennis.htm#down.)) And I cannot believe he is the only such person in American public life. In his presidential campaign, Kucinich has made a point of rejecting corporate donations to his campaign, which is why it is so poorly funded. (He’s making a virtue of necessity, really – how many corporations would want to fund a leftist like Kucinich?) Howard Dean, on the other hand, has made a point of rejecting public funding for his campaign – which frees him up to accept corporate donations and all donations with minimal FEC supervision. Bush is doing it the same way, which is no surprise. ---
**Author:** ![SpacemanSpiff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b9bd4f/32.png) [@SpacemanSpiff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SpacemanSpiff)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2003, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politicians-helplessly-corrupt/212895/15 "2003-11-13T22:00:41Z")
I’d have to say that we are no longer voting for the lesser of two evils, but the evils of two lessers. That point aside, there is much to say about our system of government, voting, politicians, and corruption. Starting with voter turnout, I think that it is quite easy to become disillusioned with the democratic process in America, thanks in large part to the Two Party system. (Was it Kang or Kodos who said “Go ahead, throw your vote away on a third party.”?) The problem with the two party system is that it seems to only have one party, the differences between Republicans and Democrats have seemingly dwindled. That may not be true, however. Maybe there are differences, but the rise of television as the medium for debate has rendered them useless. Buzzwords and catchphrases are the special of the day, any firm grasp on a candidate’s viewpoint is lost because of these. Have you seen recent Democratic Party debates? They’ve actually made 30 second intros to give you an idea of the candidate’s positions. What these boil down to is simply 30 seconds of images of the candidate, buzzwords and catchphrases strewn throughout (either on the screen or spoken) with Techno music in the background. Yes, that’s right, techno music. How can any politician be serious about this when they’ve changed their image so much to appeal to certain groups? The run for the presidency is more about marketing these days than it is about politics. It seems that the smart candidates, those who want to get into office, are vague about what they’re saying to begin with. They step around the question, avoid taking a stand on certain key issues, so they don’t losing the backing of black women between the ages of 30-40, or single mothers. They wouldn’t want to alienate certain sectors of the population, and because they are so vague, it’s hard to tell the candidates apart. Most of them are saying the same thing, so even for those who are informed, it’s not easy to make an informed choice. In essence, I’m trying to say that it’s easy to become disillusioned when there is no discernible difference between the candidates other than how they present themselves physically. (Because we should also realize that the rise of television has also restricted the presidency to those who are pleasing to the eye… It’s not as much of a contest of brains or issues anymore, it’s come down to a beauty contest.) There are so many issues here, I’d love to dive into them all, but I’ve said enough for now, I suppose. But when our government is flushing our futures down the toilet, and our country is going to hell, I shall simply say to you “Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos.” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2003, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politicians-helplessly-corrupt/212895/16 "2003-11-13T22:18:19Z")
> [@](#): > > **BrainGlutton wrote** : > At present, American politicians are corrupt because they have to be. They don’t accept bribes as such, they accept campaign contributions from the rich and the corporations and the corporate PACs and lobbying outfits – and such favors must be repaid, or you won’t get contributions when you run for re-election. Sometimes a given corporation will fund both sides in an election, just to make sure the winner will owe them a favor. Politicians cannot opt out of this system; if they try, they will be turned out of office by a better-funded challenger. But it’s simply not reasonable, in a free society, to expect to be able to limit the amount of money people spend to support their candidate. Nor do I even think you shoudl do so. As long as the stakes are large enough, people will be smart enough to find some way to get **their** point of view in front of the masses. What you have to do is make sure the stakes aren’t large enough to be worth the effor-- ie, minimize the power that government has in the first place. PS: Ever since you’ve joined the boards, I’ve read your call name as “BrianGlutton” not “BrainGlutton”. I must be at least slightly dyslexic. And, BTW, the latter call name makes a hell of a lot more sense than the former. I won’t tell you how I pictured you before.🙂 ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politicians-helplessly-corrupt/212895/17 "2003-11-14T00:53:05Z")
Posted by **John Mace:** > [@](#): > > As long as the stakes are large enough, people will be smart enough to find some way to get their point of view in front of the masses. What you have to do is make sure the stakes aren’t large enough to be worth the effor-- ie, minimize the power that government has in the first place. No, **John,** what we have to do is make it impossible to buy political influence with money. The rich have a right to vote and to have their say in public councils, just like everybody else, but **they should not have any political influence out of proportion to their numbers.** We might never quite reach that point – I think that so long as we have a class of very rich people, they will always be able to buy **some** influence – but that goal should be ever in the public mind. This is supposed to be a republic, not a plutocracy. Do you think the rich should have political influence out of proportion to their numbers (as they have now)? If so, why? Here, let me quote from a man who put it far better than I ever could, Michael Lind. In his book _The Next American Nation_ (Free Press Paperbacks, 1996), pp. 311-314, he called for the “separation of check and state”: > [@](#): > > Today’s U.S. government is democratic in form but plutocratic in substance. The American campaign finance system could not work better if it had been deliberately designed to ensure government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. In a misguided 1976 decision, _Buckley v. Valeo,_ the Supreme Court held that Congress could not limit spending by rich Americans promoting their own candidacies. This decision was to the equalization of voting power what _Dred Scott_ was to abolitionism. In _The Yale Law Review,_ Jamin Raskin and John Boniface have argued that political candidates in the United States must win a “wealth primary.” Candidates without enormous amounts of money, either from their own fortunes or from rich individuals and special interest groups, cannot hope to win party primaries – much less general elections. Indeed, the _Buckley_ decision is one reason why more than haLF the members of the Senate today are millionaires. . . . > > It is time to build a wall of separation between check and state. Curing the disease of plutocratic politics requires a correct diagnosis of its cause: the costs of political advertising. The basic problem is that special interests buy access and favors by donating the money needed for expensive political advertising in the media. Elaborate schemes governing the flow of money do nothing to address the central problem: paid political advertising. Instead of devising unworkable limits on campaign financing that leave the basic system intact, **we should cut the Gordian knot of campaign corruption by simply outlawing paid political advertising on behalf of any candidate for public office.** The replacement of political advertising by free informational public service notices in the electronic and print media would level the playing field of politics and kill off an entire parasitic industry of media consultants and spin doctors. > > . . . The argument against strict public regulation of money in politics is based on a false analogy between free spending and free speecy protected under the First Amendment. The analogy is false, because limits on campaign finance do not address the _content_ of speech – only its volume, as it were. It is not an infringement on free speech to say that, in a large public auditorium, Douglas will not be allowed to use a microphone unless Lincoln can as well. > > \ > > Campaign finance reform is not properly described as a free speech issue at all; it is, first and foremost, a civil rights issue. The progressive exclusion of monetary advantage from the civic sphere, and its confinement to the marketplace, is one of the clearest signs of political progress. When the ideal of popular democracy has triumphed over plutocratic democracy, future generations will look back on the practice of buying access and votes from politicians by means of campaign contributions with the same amazement, horror, and disgust with which we regard the poll tax, the selling of exemptions from the draft to the sons of wealthier families during the height of the Civil War, or the college-student exemption to the Vietnam draft. Today progress means, in the words of E.J. Dionne, making sure “that the votes of majorities matter more than the dollars of minorities.” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politicians-helplessly-corrupt/212895/18 "2003-11-14T01:50:47Z")
**BG** : It’s a well establishe precident that the government can’t regulate political speech. I agree with that, but apparently you don’t. How do you reconcile that belief with the 1st Amendment? If I’m rich, I can finance the publishing of Al Franken’s book or Ann Coulter’s. I can sponser a lecture circuit of either one or both of them. If you outlaw political contributions, I can finance a TV miniseries of _Atlas Shrugged_ or a radio talk show by Michael Moore. Or I can have programs produced that are thinly veiled attacks on Ronald Reagan’s politics or Bill Clinton’s. I think it is wrong to control speech because I think it is impossible to do in anything that remotely resembles a free society. Can you explain how your proposal would be implemented? How would you prevent the examples I have given from occurring? I can’t see it, except in a Stalinist state. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politicians-helplessly-corrupt/212895/19 "2003-11-14T02:52:49Z")
Posted by **John Mace:** > [@](#): > > It’s a well establishe precident that the government can’t regulate political speech. I agree with that, but apparently you don’t. How do you reconcile that belief with the 1st Amendment? Lind said it best. I will repeat: > [@](#): > > The argument against strict public regulation of money in politics is based on a false analogy between free spending and free speecy protected under the First Amendment. The analogy is false, because limits on campaign finance do not address the content of speech – only its volume, as it were. It is not an infringement on free speech to say that, in a large public auditorium, Douglas will not be allowed to use a microphone unless Lincoln can as well. To which he added a footnote: > [@](#): > > A much more compelling analogy would be between the electoral process and the judicial system, with the electorate playing the role of the jury. In our system of trial by jury, there are elaborate rules governing the presentation of evidence to the jury by plaintiff and defendant (the “candidates”). If our judicial system were organized the way our electoral system is, then rich candidates would be allowed to buy time before the jury. Texas senator Phil Gramm, in one Senate election, outspent his opponent by 300 to 1; the equivalent, in the judicial system, would be allowing a rich defendant to buy, say, six months to present his side of the case, while the poor plaintiff might be able to purchase only twenty minutes for his side. Also posted by **John:** > [@](#): > > If I’m rich, I can finance the publishing of Al Franken’s book or Ann Coulter’s. I can sponser a lecture circuit of either one or both of them. If you outlaw political contributions, I can finance a TV miniseries of Atlas Shrugged or a radio talk show by Michael Moore. Or I can have programs produced that are thinly veiled attacks on Ronald Reagan’s politics or Bill Clinton’s. Exactly. You **can** continue to do these things even under the system Lind proposes. Your freedom of expression, and even your ability to buy more freedom of expression than a poor person has, are not restricted. The difference is, a politician who wants to get elected to public office no longer **needs** your support; and, after the election, the winner owes you nothing. > [@](#): > > Can you explain how your proposal would be implemented? It’s very simple: Paid political ads (for candidates, not for general policy directions) would be illegal. TV and radio stations and newspapers in the relevant markets would be required by law to provide each candidate in an election with a certain amount of free time or space – free to the candidate, that is. Depending on how the legislation is hammered out, the media outlets might be paid the going rate for the time or space by the government; or they might be expected to eat the cost as part of their presumed editorial mission to serve and educate the public. (After all, the broadcast media are licensed by the government for use of a scarce resource – frequencies on the radio EM spectrum – and they not only pay for this privilege, they are expected to broadcast public-service announcements for free in some cases, as with the Emergency Broadcast System.) The important thing is, all the candidates (even the minor-party ones), if they qualify for the ballot, get the same time or space – just as all of them would get the same time to speak at a League of Women Voters debate. And you still haven’t answered my question: **Should** the rich be able to wield political influence wildly out of proportion to their numbers (as they do now)? If so, why? ---
**Author:** ![owlofcreamcheese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/97f17d/32.png) [@owlofcreamcheese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/owlofcreamcheese)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2003, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politicians-helplessly-corrupt/212895/20 "2003-11-14T05:04:29Z")
its just a matter that there are hundreds of “politicians” and if one of them does something wrong it gets applyed to all of them, even if there was only 100 politicians in the world and they only did something dishonest once every 1000 days, you’d still have it in the news continuously [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politicians-helplessly-corrupt/212895.md?page=2)