Universal background checks in relation to gun control, for one. There is something like 87% public support for universal background checks. Cite The NRA has prevented them.
I don’t have time to research health care and lobbying now, but I seriously doubt your assertions. Cite, please.
That’s pretty reasonable. So out of all the issues before the country, that’s one.
I did cite healthcare industry campaign spending. Scroll up.
Didn’t somebody earlier mention this?
There was a study that essentially confirmed that the US public’s desires are irrelevant. A Princeton and a Northwestern professor collated 2000+ opinion polls as well as groups appearing in Fortune magazine’s “Power 25” list with stated preferences for political outcomes and then did an analysis on the actual political outcomes:
From this study:
I think ANY organized group has an advantage over the general citizenry on any particular issue, no matter whether the group represents the left or the right. To that extent, defense contractors are still going to hold a lot of sway in states like Virginia, California, Maryland, and others on the basis that they employ tens of thousands of constituents in those places; not on the basis that they contributed a lot of money to the politicians in those states.
You are simply assuming that the study quoted is damning of the campaign finance system we have (which again, I think is a disaster), and if we only got rid of it, in a way that you and I probably have common ground on, then the populace would have a lot more sway. I keep telling you that I disagree with this. And what’s more, the study doesn’t actually measure the influence of spending in policy. The most it seems to say is, “In their multivariate analyses, Baumgartner et al. found a modest tendency for policy outcomes to favor the side that enjoyed greater resources (PAC contributions, lobbying expenditures, membership size, etc.).”
That seems to me to be common sense: the ACLU has a lot of sway among some politicians, and the NRA has a lot of sway among other politicians. But eliminate corporate campaign financing, and guess what? I contend that the ACLU and the NRA will still have a lot of sway, because they have influence with a lot of voters.
Yeah, you’re making a really good point here in terms of social issue organizations, but I think there would be a very important change - that big set of “tragedy of the commons” changes that happen because of lobbying will no longer happen in this scenario.
Comcast doesn’t control any voters, because nearly everyone hates Comcast. The only reason they (and other telecoms, the sock puppet running the FCC et al) can decide to screw everyone with an internet connection is because our politicians are essentially human-looking upscale vending machines, where you deposit your suitcase(s) of cash and get your desired legislation in return.
THAT’S the difference. And it’s a big one! I’m actually fine with groups whose power stems from voters having influence with politicians, because at least it’s an honest representation of a good chunk of people’s desires.
The situation we have now, where any corporation or billionaire with some spare suitcases of cash laying around can screw every one of us by legislating some portion of the commons to them, is entirely disconnected from we the people’s desires and well-being.
While my opinion is that lobbyists and corporations have too much influence in the US and in other countries, or that the Citizens United ruling is flawed… the OP questioned whether the US is more corrupt than a typical country. It isn’t.
Some despots may have employed jesters, or retweeted bizarre wrestling matches with logos of a major news organization replacing the head of the losing wrestler… but so what? Trump probably is not the biggest fan of Baldwin, but he can’t shut down NBC nor imprison the SNL writers out of pique. An independent media, debate and discussion about those who hold influence, impartial law (in theory), satire… these do not exist everywhere, though some degree of corruption always will.
Again… the OP is plain WRONG.
I agree the political donation system in the US can be considered a form of corruption. But all those corrupt developing countries also have corruption based on political donations, AS WELL AS a plethora of other types of ubiquitous corruption that does not exist (or at least is not ubiquitous) in the US.
So no the US is NOT more corrupt than most developing countries.
This is the second time you’ve alluded to people with Internet access being screwed. Are you talking about net neutrality? Can I point out again that those regulations were implemented by an appointed regulatory body, and then undone by the same body, which does not take campaign contributions? It sounds like you don’t have a grasp on what politicians are responsible for, for good or bad.
Would you like me to point out laws enacted over the objections or corporations, or proposals favored by corporations but not enacted? I could do so, but I have a feeling you don’t really care for evidence that contradicts your opinion.
I’m sure you could provide examples of new laws which don’t benefit elites. A few laws which don’t benefit the elites do get enacted. The Princeton study referenced above says that something like 90% of laws enacted are for benefit of the elites.
If the United States enacted a single payer healthcare law, there would certainly be winners and losers among the elites. The healthcare industry would be a loser, of course. The pharmaceutical industry may be a loser, as well.
But the winners would include (IMHO) every single business and corporation that provides employer-based private health insurance, because those entities would be relieved in substantial margin from participation in an expensive and difficult system.
So would single payer healthcare benefit the elites, or not? Seems to me that 100% of all laws (well, excluding the naming of post offices) benefits some group of elites if you look hard enough. The idea that all elites are on the same side of all issues is positively facile thinking.
Which ‘elites’? All ‘elites’ or various groups of them depending on which law we are talking about? Do some ‘elites’ benefit to the determent of other ‘elites’, or do all those laws generally benefit all ‘elites’ at all times? And do all 90% there benefit ONLY ‘elites’ with no benefit accrued to anyone who is a non-“elite”?
The problem with tossing out something like you are here which I doubt the Princeton study addresses is that ‘elite’ in the US comprises a large and diverse group of people, since I assume it refers to rich people. There is no way that 90% of the laws benefit all or even most of those 90%…and that they don’t benefit anyone who isn’t an ‘elite’. If you show me a law that president carrot top has helped get through about coal, well, that’s only going to help ‘elites’ in the coal industry, and perhaps some other ‘elites’ who invest in it. It’s also going to help some coal miners and others who work in the coal industry who aren’t ‘elites’, at least to a certain extent. It will also help non-“elites” who just invest in the coal industry. Same goes for other laws geared towards ‘elites’.
I’m guessing that the 10% that Princeton is saying weren’t for the benefit of ‘elites’ still benefited some ‘elites’ as well. Things aren’t nearly so cut and dried in the US, and there is no monolithic group of ‘elites’ here who all think and need the same thing, and who benefit from laws or other things across the board.
A lot of what some of the people in this thread think of as ‘corruption’ really isn’t, which probably has a lot to do with why the US is perceived to be so corrupt by the people taking that survey and commenting on it in this thread.
There would definitely be ‘elites’ that would benefit from single payer health care, just as there would be some who it’s neutral for and some who would have a negative outcome. And there would be winners and losers throughout the US (mainly winners IMHO). I’m not even sure if the healthcare industry as a whole would be a big loser, since you couldn’t just scrap the whole thing…it would have to integrated into any new system, or at the least there would be a transition and you’d still end up using large parts of it, just under a new model.
The thing is, the reality of the US isn’t divided neatly into some monolithic group of ‘elites’ verse some monolithic group of non-‘elites’. I think you had it right…wrt single payer healthcare this hasn’t been an example of US corruption or ‘elites’ keeping it down, it’s an example of the US voters not wanting change or trusting something they have little experience, while wanting to keep the devil they know. And as we’ve seen with a lot of things, the perception of this, too, has shifted over time.
Several things come into play with that. First, people are not well versed in all of the nuances of gun laws. I’m sure many of the respondents in that poll believe that we already require background check for any sale of a gun from a licensed dealer requires a background check. If you asked the question along the lines of “Should the Federal Government perform a background check on my son before I give him my grandfather’s old shotgun?” you would get far less than 87% in favor.
Second, it is an issue where those in favor of background checks aren’t really that forcefully behind their positions while the opponents are vehemently opposed. A politician voting for universal background checks won’t gain much, if any, of this 87% but would almost certainly lose those opposed.
Third, the NRA isn’t some monolithic fat cat that abuses the system. They get donations from millions of mostly middle class people to attempt to elect candidates that profess support for their positions. They don’t buy politicians. Chuck Schumer isn’t going to support concealed carry because an envelope filled with NRA cash gets dropped in his mailbox. They try to defeat Schumer which is exactly what one does in a legitimate democracy: try to elect people who align with your views. Why don’t these 87% start their own group and swamp the NRA? Because that support is fickle and weak.
None of this suggests a level of corruption remotely close to that of open bribery. In fact, it suggests the opposite: the elites in this country are all for stronger gun laws, but millions of people, through donations and shoe leather, have been able to have their voices heard at the ballot box. That is a good thing.