Foreign Money in U.S. Politics

[jhwalker]

So, are we okay with two, mega-rich, industrialist brothers planning to spend nearly $900M on the 2016 election cycle? Is that really good for the country?

I didn't want to get into the effect of big money, from both sides, being pumped in. But I also hate the thought of folks being persuaded to vote when they know NOTHING about the issues. Democracy is tough. I have read that less (fewer?) than 1% of the election donors donate approx. 70% of the monay.

Democracy that allows universal suffrage is a dubious form of government at best.

Maybe someone will be able to understand this better than I just did. I am a ways into the new tequila that I bought yesterday. Delish!
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/b ... 99.article

[03_SONIC_BLUR]

Democracy that allows universal suffrage is a dubious form of government at best.

Kinda like the Soviet model of everybody shares the hardship?

[xbacksideslider]

Agreed, American money and influence has been and will continue to be spent abroad.
That admitted, it is not capitalism. It is cronyism. Whether it happens here, or abroad, it has nothing to do with free markets or free enterprise.

The 1% problem is also, in the main, a result of cronyism - of politicians picking winners and losers, the winners being insiders with some kind of legal monopoly or legal license or legal inside information - all bought and paid for, with the selling done by politicians.

The so called "campaign finance reform" discussion corruptly focuses on the "special interests" who "give" the money and never on the politicians who solicit it, who take it, and who provide monopoly or license or contract or favored treatment in return. The special interests don't "give" they BUY. The politicians SELL. The politicians have the whip hand, they are superior, the interests they sell to are subordinate. The politicians have the power, no the ethical OBLIGATION, to say "no." So . . . . why does the media go along with this false emphasis? Because they too are corrupt, hoping for favors, crumbs from the royal table too. Call them "Court" journalists.

[Tetge]

To the victor goes the spoils is nothing new in the history of American politics. Andrew Jackson certainly was an early leader in repaying loyal followers, and, we all know that even those born in relative poverty seem to end up living very well after years spent in politics, Jerry Brown excepted, of course.

[xbacksideslider]

Jackson got a bad rap from the Wall Street/Boston/New York/Philly coastal power Whig power structure.

He threw their insider cronies out so, naturally, they called out his new guys.

What really pissed them off - he went after their engine of cronyism - the Bank of the United States. AND, he went after the lesser state banks too, forcing them all to go back to hard money - gold and silver - and allowed it to come from any country too, so the politicians couldn't debase the coinage by way of downsizing or with lead or copper.

Here's a couple of entertaining MP3 files on the subject -

http://mises.org/files/11-jacksonian-mo ... othbardmp3

http://mises.org/files/12-jacksonians-a ... othbardmp3