|
Part of the risk when it comes to the distorting effect of money is not the money's influence on the politician (it is very much the case that you can rarely know if the money is finding a politician who already has friendly views or if the politician is finding friendly views that get money) but rather the inordinate influence on the messages heard by the voter.
For example, let's say Politician A is not corrupt but he holds political views that MegaCorp finds very satisfactory. Politician B is not corrupt but he holds political views that MegaCorp does not want to see in office but it is quite possible a majority of the consituents voting would approve of.
With its massively disproportionate spending ability, MegaCorp could make it so expensive to communicate through mass channels (TV, radio, print newspapers) that Politician B can not offord to be heard through these channels (or barely heard).
To me this is the stronger argument related to money in politics (and as mentioned before it is not one I entirely stand behind). Not that money corrupts politicians (it can, but I honestly think that for the most part it doesn't to a huge degree) but rather money -- or rather the massively disproportionate access to it -- distorts the debate. And that is what is massively harmful to the system.
|