There's an important nuance to be drawn here: When talking about the influence of money in Washington, we're talking almost exclusively about political donations to support friendly and 'accessible' politicians: Keep me happy or I won't finance your re-election campaign. This is distinct from traditional corruption, which personally lines the pockets of politicians in exchange for doing what the payor wants.Originally Posted by Ethan
But, seen in that light, I'm not sure how 'resistant' the American system is to it. If you look at post-enlightenment democracies, the actual collapses have tended not to relate to the 'influence of money' in that sense, and of those that have persisted, the US shows more indicia of plutocratic influence than its comparitors. I could point to a lot of examples of corporate interests getting preference over good public policy, to the detriment of the average American...but to avoid getting bogged down in arguments about guns, healthcare, or tax policy, let me instead point to Mickey Mouse. and the ongoing series of copyright law reforms to protect Disney's revenue streams.
And, in the wake of Citizens United, you can only expect it to get worse. Other countries impose limitations on political financing - limiting or prohibiting corporate donations; limiting the amount a person or party can spend on a single campaign, etc. But the bar keeps getting raised on the cost of an American election campaign.
Of course, neither Trump nor Clinton is a solution to this particular problem. Clinton's a pretty typical politician, beholden in many ways to the corporate interests that finance her political campaigns. Trump's claims of self-financing are pretty dubious, too, and in any event he actually raises the likelihood of, ahem, 'traditional corruption'. He's always been pretty happy to play the game on the donor's side, including donations to attorneys general who were reviewing files affecting his businesses, but he's also been known to self-deal with money that's not exactly his in the first place - for instance, paying fines out of funds in his charity's coffers. He also doesn't appear to know the meaning of the phrase 'blind trust' - traditionally, a president will hand his assets over to an independent third party to manage over the course of his administration, without knowing how those assets are being managed. Trump, by contrast, intends to have his children manage his assets, and one would reasonably expect him to continue to be active in operating the Trump Organization while being president, despite the overt conflict of interest it would generate, as he assesses the majority of the net worth of the organization as being connected to his own personal brand. (We've seen this even during the campaign, where he has used campaign-funded events to hawk Trump-affiliated products.) Electing a President who is literally his own corporate interest is hardly a way to get Washington out of the pocket of corporate interests.
Sanders looked like a solution, but the truth is that the problem is self-perpetuating. Sanders never could have funded a competitive presidential campaign through his grassroots donations. I'm slightly hopeful (though not holding my breath) that his involvement with a Clinton administration might facilitate a push toward incremental electoral reform.
Isn't it a little premature to start a refugee program for Americans? (Frankly, given the number of "I want to move to Canada" comments following events like SCOTUS protecting gay marriage, I'm more concerned about accepting American refugees than Syrian refugees... Not that I have a problem with Palem, of course.)
Reply With Quote