Why does Money = Power?

[Paavo]

I'm not only talking about the American political system, but in general.
To stick to basic points:

- Why do you have to be rich in order to become a politician?

- Doesn't the fact that you need to be wealthy - belong to the elite, at least on some level - breed corruption by default?

- Shouldn't all candidates be given the same platform to start from? Say - use an amount of taxmoney, and share evenly to all parties / candidates? This way one candidate couldn't win by having costly TV-campaigns while others are shouting on soapboxes etc etc.

- With no corporate sponsors, corruption would decrease - as their candidate in power wouldn't "owe" the corporations anything. No donations, no influence from the business world whatsoever.

- Shouldn't politicians with strong ties to any corporation be banned from running as a candidate? There would be plenty of candidates without them. Also indirect ties (friends with a CEO, cousin/husband/wife being a CEO etc etc) would be investigated. Smaller companies would of course be alright, there could be a limit on the stock value or something.

Now, I'm a newbie to politics overall - and I'm not saying "this is how it should be, damnit!", more wondering why things are the way they are. I'm shocked of the amount and strength of corporate ties with politicians within the American (and probably most other) administrations.
So feel free to help me understand.

[waterfalllife]

Youre absolutely correct Paavo, Money should not equal power. It equals pure corruption nowadays and its somewhat sickening. But, at least in America, it has always been that way. In the beginning only the wealthy could afford good schools and become educated enough to the point of ruling a country. And ever since then it has not changed. George Washington himself was a self made millionaire, his highest net worthn at one point was over $7 million. But he squandered it on useless things and died broke.

It is a shame that the almighty dollar has come to rule the land, but there seems to be no way to get rid of that. Money and power corrupt, even the most benevolent (e.g. the Catholic Church). But it is not to say that even though money does equal power, power also equals money.

Its a double edged sword is basically what I am trying to say. And until it wears down, it will always be that way.

[Milton Bradley]

However money equals power because of the power to bribe others.


When you can buy, and sell the oppositions entire family, there is little to stand in the way of corruption. Same goes with the media. When you can buy ALL of them, where will the opposition stem from?

[PatrickHenry]

Wealth has no conscience. It seeks its own augmentation by any means necessary. The corrupt can be bribed, and the honorable can be threatened. Is this so hard to understand, Paavo?

[Paavo]

It's not hard to understand, what is hard to understand though, is why aren't people doing something about it?
Maybe you guys aren't so free after all?

[Young]

If you invest your money in the pursuit of power, and it attains you Power, then you can use the power to garner more Money and to make a path where you can make money in ways that others can't because they don't have Power.

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by Paavo, Maybe you guys aren't so free after all?

That's what I keep sayin'.
Other people think so too. Even National Review says not so free: http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murd...00401261057.asp

Amid a projected $480 billion deficit, there is no excuse for President Bush's anticipated $1.5 billion marriage-promotion program, as important as happy, loving couples are. Has Bush heard of clergymen, psychologists and marriage counselors? The Index also irrefutably demonstrates that economic freedom fuels prosperity.

We are free to pay a lotta loot to the Feds for crap like this! But stopping the runaway Federal Train is a big job...


Freedom to speak? Here ya go: http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-23-00.html

Bernice Harris' words were even more innocent. As a cashier at the U.S. Senate Coffee Shop, Harris affectionately greeted her customers as "sweetheart" and "baby." Then a man said her words left him sexually harassed. Although she kept her job, an exasperated Harris now says: "I don't call anybody 'baby' no more." With sexual harassment now defined down to terms of endearment from a middle-aged woman at a check-out stand, it's no wonder that many American workplaces are becoming increasingly sterile. With employees as sensitive as Geiger counters, who knows what random comment might set someone off.

Or the world envisioned by Orwell: http://www.refuseandresist.org/polic...t.php?aid=1244

The entire country seems to be afflicted with a pervasive sense of mistrust. <snip> For America's continued prosperity, it is this trust that must be restored. Trust among the people for the government, among employees for employers, between a man and his neighbor. Like respect, loyalty can't be bought, allegiance can't be demanded. Ultimately, it is trust, not suspicion, that will build good will among the people of the world for the people of America. And with this trust, America can once again stand proud as the land of the free – and the home of the brave.

[harami]

"- Why do you have to be rich in order to become a politician?"
Clinton, Truman, Eisenhower, Lincoln, and many others were/are not rich. Kerry is vastly rich and Bush is well off.

"- With no corporate sponsors, corruption would decrease - as their candidate in power wouldn't "owe" the corporations anything. No donations, no influence from the business world whatsoever."
Don't forget contributions by special interest groups: NRA, a panoply of unions, tial lawyers, dairy farmers, doctors, ideologicals such as Soros and other activist groups, etc. Often corporations spread their $ fairly equally between both parties (the statistics are available). So, candidates can "owe" many other groups than corporations.

"- Shouldn't politicians with strong ties to any corporation be banned from running as a candidate? " I would hope you would substitute "special interest group" for corporation. That phrase would include corporations, of course.

Where would you draw the line? Michael Moore may be construed as breaking the McCain-Feingold act if F911 continues to be shown into October. No one has yet invented a way to keep special interests, rich people and rich organizations (even though composed only of people of modest means) out of politics (always loopholes are found). Would you want to prevent the Sierra Club from contributing to politicians either directly or indirectly (by sponsoring their own ads in favor of a candidate)?

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by harami, "- Why do you have to be rich in order to become a politician?" Clinton, Truman, Eisenhower, Lincoln, and many others were/are not rich.  Kerry is vastly rich and Bush is well off.

NO presidential candidate is rich enough for the media tsunami needed today. You have to be rich, or more correctly have ACCESS to wealth, because we as Americans are easily bored with substance and have gotten to the point where we need the constant repetition of TV to get through to us. TV costs big bux and it saves a lot of shoe leather and bruised knuckles from door knocking.

Often corporations spread their $ fairly equally between both parties (the statistics are available).  So, candidates can "owe" many other groups than corporations.

They only contribute to both because they can't yet buy the elections outright... yet.

"- Shouldn't politicians with strong ties to any corporation be banned from running as a candidate? "

I mentioned that elsewhere when Dick Cheney's Haliburton ties came up. Until this happens, the only way to stop big money from buying influence and power is to make their money worthless by FORCING candidates to return to the pre-TV style campaigns. Tough, but doable.

Where would you draw the line?  Michael Moore may be construed as breaking the McCain-Feingold act if F911 continues to be shown into October.

Moore is safe, despite all the hot air from the right. If Moore is forced to stop showing his anti-Bush flick at any certain time, then you won't hear a peep out of Limbaugh, Hannity, Gallagher, Coulter and the rest at the very SAME time. If the right presses Moore TOO much, Rush will have to start spinning records.

[castille]

Originally posted by Paavo, Why do you have to be rich in order to become a politician?

Mao Zedong was very poor (begged for food), as was Deng Xiao Ping, Jiang Zemin, and Hu jintao.

Adolf Hitler was also quite poor when he started out. I believe Lenin and Stalin are also similiar (although Lenin did inherit some money from his family).

Oh yeah, Clinton wasn't exactly Mr Money either (despite his playboy lifestyle).

Doesn't the fact that you need to be wealthy - belong to the elite, at least on some level - breed corruption by default?

Not all rich people are corrupt (unless you've got evidence all of them are).

Shouldn't all candidates be given the same platform to start from? Say - use an amount of taxmoney, and share evenly to all parties / candidates? This way one candidate couldn't win by having costly TV-campaigns while others are shouting on soapboxes etc etc.

Does this mean anyone can start his own political party? After all, if money is shared equally, a member of the KKK could deliver a good campaign (which in America will get lots of votes).

Shouldn't politicians with strong ties to any corporation be banned from running as a candidate?

Er....does this mean any politician who owns stocks have to be banned? After all, stockholder are owners.

There would be plenty of candidates without them. Also indirect ties (friends with a CEO, cousin/husband/wife being a CEO etc etc) would be investigated.

Welcome to the society of Big Brother. Who shall we investigate next, Comrade?


Not all corruption is related to corporations. In some countries (ie. North Korea) people are corrupt despite the fact they don't have money or own companies. Its called human nature.

[castille]

Oh yeah....

Money doesn't equal power. Money is morally neutral - its a bloody piece of paper. How exactly is a piece of paper (or a rank of numbers) evil?


Its people who are evil....(although we still cant define what is evil)

[gr8fuldaniel]

Money is power because with it you can manipulate people and powers. I think if we create laws against bribery, priveledge and offshore tax dodgers we would have a shot at a less corrupt government. Something needs to be done about carreer lobbyists too. Scribbler brought up a good point too, The Cheney/Haliburton junta. This little tango threatens the free world, whats left of it.

[castille]

We DO have laws against bribery/tax dodging.


We just don't have the death squads to scare people away from corruption.

[gr8fuldaniel]

They arent enforced, In fact Haliburton was trading with Iran while Cheney was (more)actively involved and they were working out of an offshore mailbox to justify it. Also, most of the jobs Bush has created are overseas. He has created thousands of jobs in India (actually outsourced is more accurate) Thats the worst kind of corruption...A wolf in sheeps clothing
We definately have death squads, but that would be like amputating a foot because it had a splinter.

[Paavo]

Originally posted by castille, Mao Zedong was very poor (begged for food), as was Deng Xiao Ping, Jiang Zemin, and Hu jintao. Adolf Hitler was also quite poor when he started out. I believe Lenin and Stalin are also similiar (although Lenin did inherit some money from his family). Oh yeah, Clinton wasn't exactly Mr Money either (despite his playboy lifestyle). Not all rich people are corrupt (unless you've got evidence all of them are).

I think the fact that you have personal interests in some companies/bodies more than others, makes your views corrupt - at least on some level - even if only somewhat subliminal.

Does this mean anyone can start his own political party? After all, if money is shared equally, a member of the KKK could deliver a good campaign (which in America will get lots of votes).

Well, yes. If people voted for something, then it's what they'll get. Isn't that what democracy is all about?
Besides, you could always ban racist / violent candidacies, if the people would want that.

Er....does this mean any politician who owns stocks have to be banned? After all, stockholder are owners.

I said there could be a limit. For all I'd care, owning a large amount of stock in something that would be affected by your coming decisions - could be banned.

Welcome to the society of Big Brother. Who shall we investigate next, Comrade?

Oh come on, now one can't use the word "investigation" without getting the big brother stuff? Even in the most liberal places, police investigate crimes and such. And I'm 100% the world would be a better place if people DID investigate politicians and their actions/ties/possible corrupt acions.

Not all corruption is related to corporations. In some countries (ie. North Korea) people are corrupt despite the fact they don't have money or own companies. Its called human nature.

True, but if that's the case - the only thing people actually could do, is to take these actions. I'm sure they'd at least make bribery alot harder and more "unnatural" as the politicians wouldn't know the people personally or have long-term interests in the same ways as they do now.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Paavo It's not hard to understand, what is hard to understand though, is why aren't people doing something about it? Maybe you guys aren't so free after all?

I had to resurect this old thread after seeing this question.


...and the answer is...


Religion. Religion is what keeps poor people from killing rich people, and taking all their stuff.


I just couldn't let that languish for all eternity without being answered.