jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (30 posts)

Do you think modern politics is controlled by corporate and rich people?

  1. icv profile image54
    icvposted 2 years ago

    Do you think modern politics is controlled by corporate and rich people?

  2. Express10 profile image87
    Express10posted 2 years ago

    In the US it quite often is. Whether it be by individuals or groups that want to be in the public eye or are more secretive, too often the money that flows into our political system benefits those who make large donations at every level whether it be city, state, and/or federal. This would not have been possible if more Americans were vocal with their lawmakers and even the candidates as well as actually took part in the political process.

    1. icv profile image54
      icvposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for sharing you idea

  3. Tusitala Tom profile image66
    Tusitala Tomposted 2 years ago

    Are you kidding!   It was probably so way back in the days of Ancient Greece and Rome.   The wealthy have always been able to influence politics to a great degree.  Why would it be any different now?

    1. icv profile image54
      icvposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      That is a fact. But I think its extremism has created larger amount of inequality in the society even we are practicing the so called democracy.

    2. Express10 profile image87
      Express10posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with you both. Good observations.

  4. bradmasterOCcal profile image43
    bradmasterOCcalposted 2 years ago

    Money makes the world go round.
    It is like tithing to God for favors. Greasing the wheels is another accurate term when applied to politics.

    How do you distinguish between corporate and rich people, they are one in the same as a general rule.

    1. icv profile image54
      icvposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for sharing your view. I think, all the rich people may not be corporate. But both of them can influence the political system as said by you

    2. bradmasterOCcal profile image43
      bradmasterOCcalposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I agree,
      I did say it was a general rule.

    3. AnnaMKB profile image90
      AnnaMKBposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      While I appreciate what you're trying to day, tithing to God is not for favours.  The purpose of tithing is twofold; to provide for the needs of the priests, temple, and to distribute to those in need, and to teach us to always put God first.

    4. jonnycomelately profile image81
      jonnycomelatelyposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      So, Anna, it's the priests and the temple first, then the need but God before any of these?  I would suggest it should be "God" in the shape of the needy, then the priests and the temple last of all ..if at all.

    5. AnnaMKB profile image90
      AnnaMKBposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Way to twist a simply concept into something negative.
      The first 1/10th goes to God, through the priests and temple, who then take the 1st 1/10th to give to the needy, before their own or the temple's worldly needs.

  5. Matt Easterbrook5 profile image78
    Matt Easterbrook5posted 2 years ago

    Yes indeed my friend. Corporate America tries to figure who is going to win the election. They then have special interests groups that promote through financial means that to be winner to make it happen. Then when that Senator, Congressional member Governor, or President etc..gets into power they can control that politician like a puppet for their own agenda.

    1. icv profile image54
      icvposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks Matthew A. Easterbrook for sharing you view

  6. AnnaMKB profile image90
    AnnaMKBposted 2 years ago

    Not exactly.  Modern politics is controlled by political correctness, NGOs and other agenda driven organizations.  Politicians are far more interested in pandering to special interest groups and specific demographics. 

    That these groups also happen to be either wealthy or backed by wealth is just gravy.  Politicians have no problem rejecting corporations or individuals, no matter how wealthy, if they feel they don't fall into currently popular politically correct interests.

    1. icv profile image54
      icvposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      AnnaMKB, Thanks for your comment. I think there are fair political practice. But in most of the cases it is in favor of wealthy people.

  7. jonnycomelately profile image81
    jonnycomelatelyposted 2 years ago

    For sure it's always been the case. But today that influence can be more acutely felt, by more people, more immediately, right across the world.  And social media can have counter-influence to bring those individuals tumbling down pronto!

    1. AnnaMKB profile image90
      AnnaMKBposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I've found social media is very good at "tumbling down" people - often based on false information.  Social media is manipulated by these special interest groups more than politicians.  Case in point, Canada's current accidental Prime Minister.

    2. jonnycomelately profile image81
      jonnycomelatelyposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Good points I had not though of, thank you.

    3. icv profile image54
      icvposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for for your comment, Yes.social media can be used for improving the democratic practices

  8. alancaster149 profile image85
    alancaster149posted 2 years ago

    In the shadows, in the lobbies, on the golf course, squash or tennis court, at the races, the shoot... Everywhere people with money gather to show off their newly acquired Ferrari, aluminium racquet or golf clubs, trainer - mistress - someone will apply pressure on their local representative because they are the force that pays the wages, the salaries and bungs. Other than Cosa Nostra, money knows how to get its own way.
    But then of course there's always the reporter with a head for the dizzy heights, who wants the editor's job. Truth is stranger than fiction, so anything anyone prints is just as easily a slur as a warning. We have to recognise or differentiate between lies and selective reporting, see the warning. Will/would we recognise it?

    1. Tusitala Tom profile image66
      Tusitala Tomposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Every now and again a 'whistler blower' reveals something.  For example Wiki-leaks, the banking scandal of tax evasion through Panama, and a year or two back the Swiss Banks list of 'tax dodgers' and 'dirty money.' 
      Despite this, nothing changes.

    2. icv profile image54
      icvposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      You are right Alan. We have to improve our legal system to ensure equality of decent life for all even to the poorer

  9. Nathanville profile image95
    Nathanvilleposted 2 years ago

    Not in Britain because the electoral process is heavily regulated and controlled by ‘The Electoral Commission’, an ‘independent government body’ set up by Parliament to regulate political parties and their election finances and set standards for well-run elections. 

    There are strict spending limits on election campaigns imposed by the Electoral Commission, who audit all the accounts and publish them on the web (including the source of any donations) for transparency; that limit being less than £19.5 million ($27.5 million) for a major political party.

    Also, under British Law, each major political party has to be given equal amounts of viewing time on British Television; and all British Television Channels are heavily regulated to ensure political neutrality.

    To further help reduce the risk of corporates and rich people influencing politics The Electoral Commission also give an annual ‘Grant’ to each eligible political party (currently eight political parties in the UK). The Grant is in two parts, the first part is £1 million ($1.5 million) per year divided equally between the 8 political parties and the second part is £1 million ($1.5 million) per year divided between the 8 political parties in proportion to the number of votes they received during the last general election.

    And as a final safeguard against politicians being influenced by their financial interests each elected Member of Parliament (including the Prime Minister) have to sign the ‘Register of Members Financial Interests’ (which is published for transparency) listing companies and organisations which they have any financial interests in; and not to comply is a serious offence.

    Apart from which in Britain most political parties (including the Green Party) are politically Left Wing Socialist Political Parties who put ideology and people before profits, and therefore more immune to the temptations of influence from wealthy people and corporations.

    1. icv profile image54
      icvposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks your home comment. I am from India. We built constitution by reading many constitutions. We took many ideas of British system (Federal), USA (Unitary) and many others. But in India, still things are not fair  based on many studies and reports

    2. AnnaMKB profile image90
      AnnaMKBposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Canada has similar regulations and restrictions.  Unfortunately, Elections Canada had no problem with non-Canadian funded groups registering for third party status (illegal), nor with people publicly buying, selling and trading their votes.

    3. Nathanville profile image95
      Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you both for your feedback.  I guess India is progressive and with the right government there’s always hope for more improvement in the system in future years?  I’m surprised people can buy and sell votes in Canada; it sounds so undemocratic!

  10. lollyj lm profile image61
    lollyj lmposted 2 years ago

    I'll keep my answer simple.  YES. 
    I got a message in red saying my answer is too short and to make it longer.  So much for simplicity.  OK.......that's part of the problem in the world today.  Nothing can be simple and straightforward anymore.  It has to be complicated and convoluted, including our campaign and election process.  Smoke and mirrors that confuse the issues and keep us from following the money trail.  I'm cynical so yes, I agree that the monied and powerful have been buying political outcomes back to ancient times.  (Hope this is now long enough.)

    1. icv profile image54
      icvposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for sharing your view

  11. El Shaddai 2016 profile image63
    El Shaddai 2016posted 2 years ago

    It is the nature of politics for the wealthy to control politicians.  Politicians need money to support their campaigns.  Rich people provide the money, and in return expect favors.

 
working