How much of a problem is private money to politics?

[rousseau]

I read an interesting quote on twitter the other day, might have been through this link:

http://www.demos.org/publication/ci...tion-corporate-political-spending-and-support

Which mentioned that 90% of American's believe that corporate money is having a negative impact on politics.

I don't want to make this thread into one about American politics (although I'm sure it'll turn in to one), but instead the problem of private influence on politics in general. It seems like we've gotten ourselves into a weird situation because the amount of money needed to influence an individual is incredibly small in reference to the profit generated by many companies around the world. So you have person X with immense political power, and company Y with immense financial power, and the rest is simple math.

When you think about it, there must be a huge dark-side to politics that no one really sees, and even the most politically aware person doesn't fully grasp. For politics to be approached in a completely moral and un-self-interested way you'd have to take any and all financial motivation out of the system, which is far from being the case right now.

So I wonder, is private money as big of a problem as I'm imagining it is? Has this type of thing been systematically documented somewhere? Is there anything that can be done about it?

 

[Minimalist]

I do wonder about the effectiveness of negative advertising. When I see a commercial announcement for any product I automatically assume that the company paying for the announcement is a lying sack of shit.

The same applies to to political commercials.

I vote democratic because they are a marginal improvement over the republicans... not because I believe their horseshit.

 

[rousseau]

What spurred on this thread in particular was a decision made by councillors in my city recently to ban food trucks from the down-town area. As ridiculous as the decision was I couldn't help but wonder if some back-hand deals had influenced the councillors. For something so obvious I can't see why they'd make the decision they did.

That might not be the case, but when you extend that idea to politicians with much more power then the issue gets much more problematic.

 

[J842P]

I do wonder about the effectiveness of negative advertising. When I see a commercial announcement for any product I automatically assume that the company paying for the announcement is a lying sack of shit.

The same applies to to political commercials.

I vote democratic because they are a marginal improvement over the republicans... not because I believe their horseshit.

Advertising works. In the political sphere, negative advertising works very well, even though most people say they are above it.

 

[Narapoia]

There's no option for "Yes, It's such a colossal problem it is undermining representative democracy - shrinking the actual constituencies of politicians to those that pay for their election at the expense of the overwhelming majority of citizens"

So I chose "Yes, it's a big problem"

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I do wonder about the effectiveness of negative advertising. When I see a commercial announcement for any product I automatically assume that the company paying for the announcement is a lying sack of shit.

The same applies to to political commercials.

I vote democratic because they are a marginal improvement over the republicans... not because I believe their horseshit.

They're not always a lying sack of shit. However, negative ads without some very real issue behind them (when they're justified you almost always heard of the problem before you saw the ad) are basically saying the candidate doesn't have a good position of his own.

When I see a negative ad mentioning something that I haven't previously heard of I consider that a reason to vote against the candidate that ran the ad.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What spurred on this thread in particular was a decision made by councillors in my city recently to ban food trucks from the down-town area. As ridiculous as the decision was I couldn't help but wonder if some back-hand deals had influenced the councillors. For something so obvious I can't see why they'd make the decision they did.

That might not be the case, but when you extend that idea to politicians with much more power then the issue gets much more problematic.

I wouldn't say this is always the result of money.

Food trucks are unfair competition with restaurants--a food truck doesn't pay for it's space, a restaurant does. I don't think they belong in areas with adequate established restaurants. Let them cover the market restaurants don't--temporary demand. Construction sites and the like.

 

[Petrel]

There's no option for "Yes, It's such a colossal problem it is undermining representative democracy - shrinking the actual constituencies of politicians to those that pay for their election at the expense of the overwhelming majority of citizens"

So I chose "Yes, it's a big problem"

Me too.

Take out the word "private" and the same response applies. The party in power can advertise itself a dozen ways with public funds, that the other parties have no access to, and get kick-backs from supporters in a dozen legal ways.
When money determines the outcome of elections, money runs the country.
Not everyone considers that a problem.

 

[Petrel]

I wouldn't say this is always the result of money.

Food trucks are unfair competition with restaurants--a food truck doesn't pay for it's space, a restaurant does. I don't think they belong in areas with adequate established restaurants. Let them cover the market restaurants don't--temporary demand. Construction sites and the like.

Competition is always about money in a capitalist system - seems like there is nothing else to compete for.
Restaurants - like any other business - don't like competition because they might lose money.
How is a food-truck unfair competition? Of course it pays for its space: it has to get a license and parking permit from the city, comply with regulations and pay taxes, like every other business. If the established restaurants are truly adequate to the local clientele, nobody will buy from the trucks. If the established restaurants are only adequate to the up-scale clientele, then day-workers will grab a lunch sandwich from the truck, instead of waiting half an hour to be served and paying five times as much... which, in fact, they won't (can't afford to) do, even if there are no trucks.

 

[J842P]

What spurred on this thread in particular was a decision made by councillors in my city recently to ban food trucks from the down-town area. As ridiculous as the decision was I couldn't help but wonder if some back-hand deals had influenced the councillors. For something so obvious I can't see why they'd make the decision they did.

That might not be the case, but when you extend that idea to politicians with much more power then the issue gets much more problematic.

I wouldn't say this is always the result of money.

Food trucks are unfair competition with restaurants--a food truck doesn't pay for it's space, a restaurant does. I don't think they belong in areas with adequate established restaurants. Let them cover the market restaurants don't--temporary demand. Construction sites and the like.

Why is that "unfair competition" rather than simply a more clever business model?

 

[DrZoidberg]

In Sweden each party in government gets a massive bag of money to campaign with. Any private donations are rendered practically irrelevant, and no politician has any incentive to give special privileges based on them. So... I'd say it depends on the country. In Sweden private donations are not a problem.

Tiny political parties with less than 4% support are dependent on private funding. But they're so small that they don't really matter.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I wouldn't say this is always the result of money.

Food trucks are unfair competition with restaurants--a food truck doesn't pay for it's space, a restaurant does. I don't think they belong in areas with adequate established restaurants. Let them cover the market restaurants don't--temporary demand. Construction sites and the like.

Competition is always about money in a capitalist system - seems like there is nothing else to compete for.
Restaurants - like any other business - don't like competition because they might lose money.
How is a food-truck unfair competition? Of course it pays for its space: it has to get a license and parking permit from the city, comply with regulations and pay taxes, like every other business. If the established restaurants are truly adequate to the local clientele, nobody will buy from the trucks. If the established restaurants are only adequate to the up-scale clientele, then day-workers will grab a lunch sandwich from the truck, instead of waiting half an hour to be served and paying five times as much... which, in fact, they won't (can't afford to) do, even if there are no trucks.

The thing is the food truck undercuts the restaurant because it's not paying for it's space. The food truck is getting an unfair subsidy.

- - - Updated - - -

What spurred on this thread in particular was a decision made by councillors in my city recently to ban food trucks from the down-town area. As ridiculous as the decision was I couldn't help but wonder if some back-hand deals had influenced the councillors. For something so obvious I can't see why they'd make the decision they did.

That might not be the case, but when you extend that idea to politicians with much more power then the issue gets much more problematic.

I wouldn't say this is always the result of money.

Food trucks are unfair competition with restaurants--a food truck doesn't pay for it's space, a restaurant does. I don't think they belong in areas with adequate established restaurants. Let them cover the market restaurants don't--temporary demand. Construction sites and the like.

Why is that "unfair competition" rather than simply a more clever business model?

Because the food truck doesn't pay for it's space--they're freeloading.

 

[untermensche]

A restaurant is a very different thing from a food truck.

And if a restaurant can't compete with a food truck then it should do something else.

And to the OP, yes, it is the richer restaurant owners, the corruption of money, that turned this nonsense into law.

 

[ksen]

Food trucks are unfair competition with restaurants--a food truck doesn't pay for it's space, a restaurant does. I don't think they belong in areas with adequate established restaurants. Let them cover the market restaurants don't--temporary demand. Construction sites and the like.

Look at you wanting to use the heavy hand of government to smack down the invisible hand of the market!

 

[KeepTalking]

I wouldn't say this is always the result of money.

Food trucks are unfair competition with restaurants--a food truck doesn't pay for it's space, a restaurant does. I don't think they belong in areas with adequate established restaurants. Let them cover the market restaurants don't--temporary demand. Construction sites and the like.

Competition is always about money in a capitalist system - seems like there is nothing else to compete for.
Restaurants - like any other business - don't like competition because they might lose money.
How is a food-truck unfair competition? Of course it pays for its space: it has to get a license and parking permit from the city, comply with regulations and pay taxes, like every other business. If the established restaurants are truly adequate to the local clientele, nobody will buy from the trucks. If the established restaurants are only adequate to the up-scale clientele, then day-workers will grab a lunch sandwich from the truck, instead of waiting half an hour to be served and paying five times as much... which, in fact, they won't (can't afford to) do, even if there are no trucks.

The thing is the food truck undercuts the restaurant because it's not paying for it's space. The food truck is getting an unfair subsidy.

- - - Updated - - -

What spurred on this thread in particular was a decision made by councillors in my city recently to ban food trucks from the down-town area. As ridiculous as the decision was I couldn't help but wonder if some back-hand deals had influenced the councillors. For something so obvious I can't see why they'd make the decision they did.

That might not be the case, but when you extend that idea to politicians with much more power then the issue gets much more problematic.

I wouldn't say this is always the result of money.

Food trucks are unfair competition with restaurants--a food truck doesn't pay for it's space, a restaurant does. I don't think they belong in areas with adequate established restaurants. Let them cover the market restaurants don't--temporary demand. Construction sites and the like.

Why is that "unfair competition" rather than simply a more clever business model?

Because the food truck doesn't pay for it's space--they're freeloading.

They do pay for their space. Their space is the truck, do you think they got it for free? Do you think the maintenance on the truck, and the gas is free? It's a different model of food service than restaurants, with its own set of expenses that restaurants do not have.

 

[Underseer]

What spurred on this thread in particular was a decision made by councillors in my city recently to ban food trucks from the down-town area. As ridiculous as the decision was I couldn't help but wonder if some back-hand deals had influenced the councillors. For something so obvious I can't see why they'd make the decision they did.

That might not be the case, but when you extend that idea to politicians with much more power then the issue gets much more problematic.

I wouldn't say this is always the result of money.

Food trucks are unfair competition with restaurants--a food truck doesn't pay for it's space, a restaurant does. I don't think they belong in areas with adequate established restaurants. Let them cover the market restaurants don't--temporary demand. Construction sites and the like.

So you want Big Government to dictate where food trucks can and can't provide services to customers? Should we create a new regulatory agency to monitor the food trucks and make sure they are only in government-approved locations? How much of our tax dollars should be spent on regulating food trucks?

 

[Underseer]

Why are we talking about food trucks instead of money corrupting or not corrupting our political process?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They do pay for their space. Their space is the truck, do you think they got it for free? Do you think the maintenance on the truck, and the gas is free? It's a different model of food service than restaurants, with its own set of expenses that restaurants do not have.

The food truck is the equivalent of the kitchen. They don't pay for the patron seating, they don't pay for the patron parking.

- - - Updated - - -

What spurred on this thread in particular was a decision made by councillors in my city recently to ban food trucks from the down-town area. As ridiculous as the decision was I couldn't help but wonder if some back-hand deals had influenced the councillors. For something so obvious I can't see why they'd make the decision they did.

That might not be the case, but when you extend that idea to politicians with much more power then the issue gets much more problematic.

I wouldn't say this is always the result of money.

Food trucks are unfair competition with restaurants--a food truck doesn't pay for it's space, a restaurant does. I don't think they belong in areas with adequate established restaurants. Let them cover the market restaurants don't--temporary demand. Construction sites and the like.

So you want Big Government to dictate where food trucks can and can't provide services to customers? Should we create a new regulatory agency to monitor the food trucks and make sure they are only in government-approved locations? How much of our tax dollars should be spent on regulating food trucks?

How about a simple rule: Food trucks can only do business from private property and with the permission of the entity with control of the property. (I won't say owner because if a business is leasing a building I would say they still get to decide if the food truck goes in their parking lot, not the actual owner of the building.)

 

[Narapoia]

The food truck is the equivalent of the kitchen. They don't pay for the patron seating, they don't pay for the patron parking.

I wouldn't say this is always the result of money.

Food trucks are unfair competition with restaurants--a food truck doesn't pay for it's space, a restaurant does. I don't think they belong in areas with adequate established restaurants. Let them cover the market restaurants don't--temporary demand. Construction sites and the like.

How about a simple rule: Food trucks can only do business from private property and with the permission of the entity with control of the property. (I won't say owner because if a business is leasing a building I would say they still get to decide if the food truck goes in their parking lot, not the actual owner of the building.)

Mobile phones are equivalent to land-line communication - they allows people to communicate while not in person with the added advantage of mobility. Clearly this is not fair for the providers of land-line communication as they don't have the same costs. Mobile service providers don't pay for wide-spread expensive physical infrastructure i.e. wires and cables all over the country and internationally, just a few towers here and there. I don't think that mobile phone systems belong in areas with established land-line networks, only in markets where land-line service is not available or there is temporary demand. This can be achieved easily as mobile operators will simply be denied access to the publicly owned electromagnetic emission wavelengths required for their networks to operate.

If different companied owned the wired vs wireless communication networks, and the established wired operators owned politicians, would you accept the above logic to restrict the market for wireless communication?

 

[Petrel]

Food trucks have to pay licensing and parking fees, like every vendor everywhere. They have overhead, like every business everywhere. They fill a niche in the economic ecology, adapt or die, have predators and prey. It's just another business, at the lower end of the business food-chain.... as it were.

That's a very, very, very small part of why money corrupts government.
And everything else.