Corporate Campaign Corruption Continued

In a recent thread on this topic, Starchild brought up the point that corporations donating to political campaigns would necessarily be acting against their best interests. Some new information came to light on this subject (new to me anyway). I was listening to an interview with an opponent of the 'Citizens United' decision, which is pretty now known to have been an utterly fraudlent case.

Anyway, this researcher (didn't get his name) addressed this issue. According to him, corporate interests are collectively shifting their political focus. Lobbying is a multi-billion dollar a year industry, and corporations have to compete for political favors. According to this researcher, now there is a simple economic calculus: political campaigns can be financed at a fraction of the cost of lobbying and the winning candidate is monopoly-owned corporate shill for the next 2-6 years.

  I have to give the Wall Street Mafia credit on this one: a really successful criminal coup deserves a measure of respect, even if it does work against everybody's best interests. I thought the TARP Bailout was the ultimate in diabolical audacity, but THIS trumps even that one! Corporate America has figured out how to buy the government outright, taking it over in a nonviolent coup, and making it look legal and democratic in the process! And there IS a silver lining in all this, too: after these lobbying punks have worked hard to outsource our economy, it's poetic justice that they're about to share the same fate.

  The downside, of course, though, is that the "Neocon Long March', as I've elsewhere termed it, will continue unabated until Fascism is firmly established.

Eric,

  I don't think corporations giving money to politicians automatically amounts to "corruption" (hence my change to the subject line), any more than any other organization or individual giving campaign contributions does. In many cases, organizations lobby to protect legitimate economic freedoms and as a form of damage control. They aren't exclusively bent on seeking handouts. More thoughts below...

In a recent thread on this topic, Starchild brought up the point that corporations donating to political campaigns would necessarily be acting against their best interests.

  That's not precisely what I said. In some cases, I think corporations are smart to contribute to political campaigns.

Some new information came to light on this subject (new to me anyway). I was listening to an interview with an opponent of the 'Citizens United' decision, which is pretty now known to have been an utterly fraudlent case.

  Utterly fraudulent according to whom? That case arose out of a lawsuit by a grassroots organization that made a documentary attacking then-Senator Hilary Clinton. Authorities sought to classify the film as a "campaign contribution" making it subject to spending limits. That's a dangerous assault on freedom of speech and the ability of the people to criticize government, and I think the ruling was a clear victory for freedom.

Anyway, this researcher (didn't get his name) addressed this issue. According to him, corporate interests are collectively shifting their political focus. Lobbying is a multi-billion dollar a year industry, and corporations have to compete for political favors. According to this researcher, now there is a simple economic calculus: political campaigns can be financed at a fraction of the cost of lobbying and the winning candidate is monopoly-owned corporate shill for the next 2-6 years.

  I believe my point with regard to corporations and political giving was that they are foolish if they think the recipients of their donations will reliably stay bought.

I have to give the Wall Street Mafia credit on this one: a really successful criminal coup deserves a measure of respect, even if it does work against everybody's best interests. I thought the TARP Bailout was the ultimate in diabolical audacity, but THIS trumps even that one! Corporate America has figured out how to buy the government outright, taking it over in a nonviolent coup, and making it look legal and democratic in the process!

  This article makes a good case that there is no imminent massive wave of corporate spending on elections -- http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1060:national-journal-six-myths-about-campaign-money-aug-7-2010&catid=64:press-articles-of-interest&Itemid=62.

And there IS a silver lining in all this, too: after these lobbying punks have worked hard to outsource our economy, it's poetic justice that they're about to share the same fate.

  By "our" economy, are you speaking in nationalist terms meaning the U.S. economy?
  

The downside, of course, though, is that the "Neocon Long March', as I've elsewhere termed it, will continue unabated until Fascism is firmly established.

  How do you define "fascism"? Here's an excellent piece on the historical origins of the term -- http://www.la-articles.org.uk/fascism.htm#n1. While I don't think the historical origins necessarily represent the final word on what the contemporary definition is or ought to be, I think they are part of the picture.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

Starchild;
  I don't think there's any more or less corporate contributions than before, it's just that with the Citizens' United decision, the corporate control over politicians is more direct than through lobbyists. Actually, from a purely cost-benefit analysis, eliminating the need for lobbyists is arguably a more efficient use of campaign spending.

  However, Citizens United is a very shady organization, founded by Bush henchman Floyd Brown and currently headed by David Bossie. Bossie was connected to the Landmark Legal Foundation, as were 4 Supreme Court judges, and the LLF is a notorious right-wing front group.

  I recently heard a proposal at a libertarian meeting that had interesting overtones, I'd like feedback on it: the idea was to eliminate campaigning altogether and require various media outlets to broadcast a certain number of debates between the candidates. The candidates, of course, would also have websites available where they make their positions clear and can interact with the public. What do you think of that idea?