To what extent has democracy in the US been subverted by money?

[dps]

Oh please, people have been bitching about corruption in the US pretty much since the moment we had a nation. This is just more of the same, and nothing has really changed.

The issue is less corruption, but a very high bar to anyone who wants to enter politics.

If you're planning to jump right in with a bid for Congress, yeah.  But that's probably always been true.  And it's not really true if you're running for your local city council or board of education or the like, at least in the vast majority of cases.

[Zanza]

We did not have the majority of the corruption occurring form international corps and foreign nations. [...] With the inflow of money from largely internationalist sources over the past forty years we have reached that point.

Never heard about that particular angle to campaign financing in the USA before. Is that really the case and can be quantified as a percentage of campaign finance?

[crazy canuck]

I think you are correct Berkut.  And the problem is exacerbated by the extreme concentration of wealth in the US (and other countries but particularly the US).  If income distribution was more equitable then at least politicians would have to appeal to a wider base.  But now, and particularly in the US, fund raising strategies and therefore policy can be targeted at a very small group.

[dps]

We did not have the majority of the corruption occurring form international corps and foreign nations. [...] With the inflow of money from largely internationalist sources over the past forty years we have reached that point.

Never heard about that particular angle to campaign financing in the USA before. Is that really the case and can be quantified as a percentage of campaign finance?

Certainly a lot of corporate campaign donations come from multinational corporations (which I assume is what Berkut meant by "international corps"), but then again, most major corporations nowdays are multinationals.  Not sure about the foreign nations part.  And I'm sure there are numbers available somewhere if anyone cares to hunt them out.

[alfred russel]

Berkut lists a list of things that he believes money is paralyzing the US regarding, but what he skips over is that when he talks about income inequality or health care (for instance) not being addressed, is that the US really isn't a dramatic outlier when it comes to the rest of the western world, and to the extent it is that difference hasn't corresponded to the USSC decisions. And if anything we seem to be converging with places like Western Europe.

[The Minsky Moment]

Even with Obamacare, the US is an outlier on health care.  And there does appear to be a connection between the odd design of Obamacare and the fact that the legislation involved an explicit bargain with the pharma industry and an implicit one with the insurance industry.

[alfred russel]

Even with Obamacare, the US is an outlier on health care.  And there does appear to be a connection between the odd design of Obamacare and the fact that the legislation involved an explicit bargain with the pharma industry and an implicit one with the insurance industry.

Mandatory insurance is a model used in other countries. I agree we are still an outlier, but less of an outlier than we were than pre Obamacare.

[crazy canuck]

Berkut lists a list of things that he believes money is paralyzing the US regarding, but what he skips over is that when he talks about income inequality or health care (for instance) not being addressed, is that the US really isn't a dramatic outlier when it comes to the rest of the western world,

Ah no.  The majority of the Western world has single payor (government) health care models.  In the US you have made primary private health insurance mandatory.  The reason the US is not able to reform its medical system to one that is more rational and efficient is exactly because of the reasons Berkut has stated.

[alfred russel]

Ah no.  The majority of the Western world has single payor (government) health care models.  In the US you have made primary private health insurance mandatory.  The reason the US is not able to reform its medical system to one that is more rational and efficient is exactly because of the reasons Berkut has stated.

You are disagreeing with me on terms regarding whether the US is an "outlier", but then talking about what the majority is doing? Either we don't have a common understanding of the word "outlier", or your post is something of a non sequitor.

[Berkut]

I dunno, seems like the democracy of Tammany Hall/Mayor Daley/Governor Huey Long might be a tad more corrupt than today.

I think today is far worse, because it is actually "legal" corruption. It isn't "Here is a bag of money, please vote as such" but it is "Here is a funding stream, and as long as you represent us, it will remain in place". This is far worse, IMO, than overt corruption.

Politicians have always relied on donations to fund their campaigns.  The only real change is that limits on individual contributions have shifted a good bit of the source of those funds from wealthy individuals to organizations.

Of course, but the scale matters. It matters a lot.

When it costs some amount of money to run a campaign, then you of course need to find that money, and of course you will be, in some measure beholden to those who get you that money. This is how the system was intended to work. You have politicians soliciting funds largely from the same people who are going to vote for them.

Now the voters don't matter - they cannot provide funds in any meaningful amount that will make any difference at all. The 2010 midterms saw $300 million dollars spent, almost all of that through superPacs and corporate sources. That is more than all the midterms elections from 1990-2010 combined.

The system can handle some amount of this - but the system doesn't even exist anymore. It is completely driven by corporations - corporations now fund political campaigns exclusively in a practical sense. You get whatever politicians corporate money wants to fund.

This is not "business as usual".

[Berkut]

I think you are correct Berkut.  And the problem is exacerbated by the extreme concentration of wealth in the US (and other countries but particularly the US).  If income distribution was more equitable then at least politicians would have to appeal to a wider base.  But now, and particularly in the US, fund raising strategies and therefore policy can be targeted at a very small group.

Well of course - there is a rather obvious feedback loop here, right?

The super wealthy fund politicians, and surprise surprise, the super wealthy become even more super wealthy, which lets them funnel more money to politicians, rinse and repeat. The cycle is starkly obvious, IMO.

Why didn't any bankers end up in jail? Why hasn't there been obvious financial system reform? Duh, how could there be, when the people who would need to do that reform are funded by the corporations who would be harmed by that reform?

Like I said, I cannot even really blame the politicians - they are creatures of the system. They cannot be other than what they are.

[Valmy]

I cannot even blame the corporations.  If their competition is buying politicians than they need to as well to compete.  The system needs to be reformed.

[Berkut]

Oh please, people have been bitching about corruption in the US pretty much since the moment we had a nation. This is just more of the same, and nothing has really changed.

The issue is less corruption, but a very high bar to anyone who wants to enter politics.

If you're planning to jump right in with a bid for Congress, yeah.  But that's probably always been true.  And it's not really true if you're running for your local city council or board of education or the like, at least in the vast majority of cases.

Times they are a-changing:

[alfred russel]

Why didn't any bankers end up in jail? Why hasn't there been obvious financial system reform? Duh, how could there be, when the people who would need to do that reform are funded by the corporations who would be harmed by that reform?

You know what I love about this? The presumption that the bankers broke the law and that reform would do any good.

Take the Enron / Arthur Anderson scandal. The world turned upside down for that one with a while. Arthur Anderson was effectively shut down, and massive reforms passed.

You know what happened to the partner at Arthur Anderson actually at the center of the situation? The government went after him, and he initially received a criminal conviction. However, it effectively was overturned on appeal, he settled the civil charges, and is now the CFO of an oil company, probably making more than he ever did at Arthur Anderson.

As for the reforms passed over the howls of the business lobby, which created a whole new accounting oversight board and tons of regulations, I think any accountant involved will tell you that the vast majority of effort is not going into work that will prevent the next Enron. But it is without a doubt helping my career as an accountant, so by all means bring on the next scandal and even more reforms.

[Berkut]

I cannot even blame the corporations.  If their competition is buying politicians than they need to as well to compete.  The system needs to be reformed.

Of course.

The basic problem with corporations is that even thought the SC pretends they are people, they are not people.

They are legally and market bound to pursue only one goal - profits for their shareholders. So of course they are going to do so in whatever manner the system allows them to achieve that and only that goal.

I mean, if I knew someone who acted in that manner, some person who said "The only thing I care about at all, EVER, is maximizing my personal profits over and above ANY other concern" I would not much care for that person, right? I wouldn't trust them to watch my kids, I wouldn't trust them to be in charge of my school, I wouldn't ask them to really do much of anything other than make money.

And the "people" that the USSC has decided should be allowed to be the primary and effectively only source of funds for getting politicians elected to office are "people" who by the very nature of their construction are only motivated by profit for their shareholders - it is the very basis for how a corporation is designed.

And that is who now funds the election of politicians in America.

DPS pointed out that this was mostly still just federal, which is kind of true, but you know this trend only moves one way - it's not like it isn't inevitably going to continue to trickle down and throughout our entire political spectrum. Why wouldn't it?

The change in just the last 20 years has been breathtaking and dramatic. It isn't going to stop.