Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rebound
What point were you trying to make? That attempting to influence the people in charge is wrong? It only is if they break the law in the process - or in the "influencee" breaks the law.
|
When you say "attempting", then you are implying that it doesn't work. Obviously it does work, or they wouldn't do it.
So if you are Lockheed, why would you give tons of money to both Kerry and Bush campaigns? What possible decisions would the President make that would help your company out? The president does not award contracts to military contractors. In fact, he has no involvement whatsoever in that. So then why would they do this?
The answer is that the president can take the country to war, which will result in increased profits for Lockheed, who is the #1 military contractor. The President can also push for a higher Defense budget, which will also result in increased profits for them.
And Lockheed obviously feels that giving all this campaign money will result in higher profits, which implies that they think they have an effect on his decisions, which they indeed do.
So to sum up, you have large corporations giving money to the President (and congress) which results in them spending more on Defense than they would otherwise, and more likely to go to war than they would otherwise.
And no, in our current messed up system, this is not illegal or "breaking the law".
So are you happy knowing that profit levels of the large military contractors is a major factor in the military decisions our leaders make?
From your comment
"Remember the old maxim: "It's not what you know, but who." You may not like it, but that's the way the world works.", it appears you are content with knowing this. I am not.