Brian, I think I take a somewhat broader view of the issue than you do in that I see an inherently causal link between the amount of money involved in political campaigns and politics in general and the range and scope of the powers claimed by the government in general and the federal government in particular. Corporations, like labor unions and speical interest groups, have their own legitimate interests, and as with labor unions and special interest groups, the nature and content of the laws and regualtions governing their activities effects their ability to act in accordance with their interests. Therefore, the more power and authority the federal government claims, the greater an interest corporations will have in seeing that the people responsible for making the laws and regualtions that govern their conduct have views that will lead to a regulatory environment that is favorable to them. It follows from this that the greater a stake a corporation has in political developments, the larger an investment it will be willing to make in the political process. So, given current levels of government power, authority and regualtion, I have no problem with corporate money in politics as long as the money is not used for bribery, as may have happened in the case of Duke Cunningham.
On the other hand, I have a significant problem with the amount of corporate, labor, and special interest money in politics because it is a necessary consequence of a government that wields too much power. Furthermore, I suspect that the problem tends to exacerbate itself because politicians of all stripes tend to like the thought of being able to command the loyalties (i.e. money) of powerful entities such as corporations and labor unions, and the more power they command, the more loyalty they can demand.
No comments:
Post a Comment