Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 18th Feb 2013 22:28 UTC, submitted by bowkota
In the News "The last time we looked at Silicon Valley's lobbying efforts, Google was the big spender and Apple the piker. That hasn't changed much in the past nine months. In fact, Google increased its political spending in 2012 - a Presidential election year - by nearly 90%, while Apple reduced its by 13%." Anti-SOPA or no, that's a hell of a lot of money. This should be illegal - it's thinly veiled corruption.
Thread beginning with comment 552897
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by kurkosdr
by kurkosdr on Tue 19th Feb 2013 11:16 UTC
kurkosdr
Member since:
2011-04-11

Pardon me dear gentlemen, but shouldn't we first and foremost blame the citizens who vote (again and again) for candidates who officially accept "donations" from for-profit corps? It's like the guy who sold the Eifel tower to another guy. Shouldn't we blame the "another guy" first and foremost for getting duped into a con like that?
If a candidate accepts "donatioms", don't vote for him/her. If everybody did that, "donations" would have to be under the table, which is unethical and probably illegal.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by kurkosdr
by Alfman on Tue 19th Feb 2013 15:19 in reply to "Comment by kurkosdr"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

kurkosdr,

"Pardon me dear gentlemen, but shouldn't we first and foremost blame the citizens who vote (again and again) for candidates who officially accept 'donations' from for-profit corps?"

I understand the sentiment, but at the same time it's sort of naive. Politics is a millionaires game. Unless you are independently wealthy or have some corporate sponsors, you're out. In principal many of us are against corruption and grey political "donations", but such campaigns are at such an economic disadvantage that they rule themselves out of the race. It sucks, but it's Darwinism at work, politicians who reject corporate funds are poorer and inherently much weaker than those who use them.


Go ahead and criticize the voters, but at the same time unless you can propose a general solution to even out the playing field, it will not change. Do you have an answer to the problem of how to give more representation to those who cannot afford it?

This is a widely recognized problem in US politics. Proposed solutions have not made much headway:

1. Cap campaign funding/spending (our last election had fewer restrictions than previous ones owning to the "money is speech" and "corporations are people" movements [*]).

2. Government funding of elections / media on behalf of candidates so that non-wealthy candidates have a fighting chance.

* Edit:
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2010/04/26/am.costello.co...

Edited 2013-02-19 15:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3