Do they really need that, though?
There’s some increasingly convincing evidence that relative prosperity/happiness is more important to people than absolute prosperity/happiness. As long as they had it 100 times better than the next schmoe, they wouldn’t mind it so much compared to only having it 10 times better even if it meant having more wealth overall.
First rung: Large business associations.
Second rung: Politicians.
Politicians aren’t necessary greedy for themselves. However campaigns are expensive, and they want to hold onto their job. Offering a politician money gets you nothing; they’re watched too carefully. Offer a politician a large campaign contribution and you may get a favor. Offer them large donations from several large companies and you net a real favor. Do that with all major political parties and they’ll all say the same things in areas that they’re interested in.
Some areas of government are more resistant to this kind of corruption than others. I suspect law enforcement and military are vulnerable to political corruption but not corporate corruption (not as much). They’re not completely immune. I’m sure military technology contractors have a reason to have a factory that produces an important jet fighter part in all fifty states, enabling you to effectively but indirectly bribe 100 senators. (“If you close that plant, you’re all losing jobs in your districts.”)
King Brian, House of Mingus
That’s peameal bacon and Molson’s, ya hoser.
Anyway, I’m just finishing Mr. Robot. It’s the Dark Army, duh. Now, excuse me while I answer the knock at the door.
I suspect corporate influence tends to be more single-note than say… politicians or the very rich individuals and families (except where they overlap).
By that, I mean that a large oil company isn’t going to have any interest at all in things that don’t affect the price of oil, the selling of oil or the processing of oil-related stuff. They aren’t going to care one bit about say… privacy laws, or food deserts or any of that stuff. Similarly, a healthcare company may have a lot of interest in privacy laws, but very little in mineral rights legislation.
Meanwhile, some super-rich prick like Charles Koch might actually have personal opinions about all those things and be willing to apply his cash toward those opinions.
If I was to nominate a single person/body/institutions then IMHO the closest would be the bond market.
C’mon, we all know who controls the levers of power.
