Seth wrote:JimC wrote:Big money buys big political power, to help the big money people make even more money...
Prove it. If you can, call the FBI and the DOJ and file a racketeering and corruption complaint against the "big money" you believe is buying big political power.
They're not talking about explicit bribes and such. They're talking about political contributions being made to obtain influence, and that influence is obtained. People don't give millions of dollars to Hillary Clinton because they like the cut of her jib. And, businesses generally don't give away money for nothing.
And, the pressure goes both ways -- the money buys influence, but politicians also use their influence to compel donations -- give, because you know I'll be working on the next bill effecting your industry.... On one side it's buying influence, and the companies can apply pressure that if you fuck me out of this money, then next time we're going to fund the other candidate, and if you're going to fuck us on legislation anyway, we're not going to pay you -- on the other side it's protection money, where the politicians imply that bad things can happen....
Seth wrote:
What you're going to find is that the DOJ is going to tell you to pound sand because there is no direct quid pro quo in campaign financing under the existing laws.
So what? That doesn't mean there isn't a problem with moneyed interests having influence in politics.
Seth wrote:
Besides, so what? When the big money people make money, everybody else benefits because their money doesn't sit in their mattresses it's circulated and invested in building businesses that produce products and hire employees to make those products who get paychecks that allow them to buy goods they need and want, which is the whole point of an economy.
Certainly, but the influence can also result in legislation being gutted in a manner not in the public interest, depending on one's view of it, and if politicians change legislation simply because a big donor donates money, then that may, or may not, be good for everybody. It may well only be good for the donor.
Seth wrote:
Killing off "big money" people serves no useful purpose and destroys economies. Just look at Venezuela for proof absolute of that fact. Chavez killed off the geese that laid the golden eggs that made Venezuelans rich using Marxist seizure and redistribution tactics against the "big money people" who had invested billions if not trillions in Venezuela's oil industry, so the "big money people" said "Fuck you liberal Marxist fascists, we're taking our money and we're going elsewhere so you can stick your Marxist nationalized oil right up your ass." And what's happened subsequently? Venezuela has collapsed into anarchy, starvation and death, just as I've so often predicted all Marxist societies must eventually do because nobody with "big money" will invest at fucking dime in Venezuela.
So Up the Big Money People! They are the ones who keep the economy pumping out wealth.
It doesn't have to be about killing them off. I am no socialist, but I certainly recognize the influence of moneyed interests in politics. Hillary Clinton is influenced by her large foreign donors. That's not even really debatable. Her suggestions otherwise ring tinny and hollow.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar
