Corruption in the west is a conspiracy and it most certainly does not happen. Businesses give money to candidates because they like them, not because of a desire to make a return from it.

Even if they did, the means that were taken to make a profit for businesses get would be in line with what the people want and would be positive for the environment.

Of course an internet subforum's expertise is not in solving this issue, but this is a discussion board, and you don't have to share your personal opinion on the subject unless you want to.

Do you think corporations and special interest groups have a disproportionate influence over the democratic process in the United States?

Not nearly as much as you do. As I've said before I hold voters accountable for a majority of the problems and problem politicians in this country.

I do think votes count and voting matters. I think often Americans gets what Americans want and then they bitch when they do

I also think that voters hold the most power and are ultimately accountable for a majority of the problems Americans face. At the end of the day, we are the ones casting ballots, not corporations or special interests.

But I'm asking you a specific question. Do you think corporations and special interest groups have a disproportionate influence over the democratic process in the United States?

If the voters hold the most power and are responsible for screwing up then how do special interests and corps have disproportionate influence?

To me this is similar to the right being for small government and individuals and blah blah but then being the exact opposite. The left doesn't really want less money involved they want less republican money being involved

The influence of corporations and special interest groups over elections and votes is larger than what it should be. The people still hold the most power, but that does not exclude the possibility of corporations/special interests having more influence over elections and votes than they probably should have.

Take for instance the NRA. When polled, the majority of Americans want to see increased gun restrictions. However, we see very little of those gun restrictions because the NRA is constantly lining the pockets of politicians to vote or behave in certain ways as it pertains to gun laws.

This is an example of a special interest group holding a disproportionate amount of power over elections and votes. What the people want vs what we get isn't always the same thing because money from corporations and special interest groups can influence the way politicians vote and behave.

To be clear, I do not think that special interest groups and corporations should have zero power or influence over the democratic process in America. I just think that Citizens United exacerbated the problem.

Take a look at the ridiculous amount of money pouring into this presidential election and the past presidential election and compare them to 2008 and previous elections in the US and you will see what I'm talking about. It didn't used to always be this way. Sanders and Clinton are right, Citizens United strips away some of the influence from voters (and yes, they still hold the majority of the power).

The Nra is a good example but couldn't it also be said that politicians are terrified of the many gun nut voters in this country that take any movement at all on the issue as a direct attack on the second amendment?

Which would show the voters kinda getting what they want even though many agree on certain things

Ultimately, I agree with you in that the people have the most power. We could force Congress to do what we what by insisting on voting them out of office if they do not meet the demands on the people.

There are many other factors at play here, including how our government representation works on the federal level (smaller states still get 2 Senators) and the incumbency rate/approval rating disparity in modern day Congress.

But my point is that corporations and special interest groups probably have too much influence over how things work in our country. Like I said, I don't think that they should have zero influence, but I think overturning Citizens United would be a good step. That's why I'm glad Clinton is on board with it. Even if it's just lip service, it still represents a step in a positive direction.

So yes, voters ultimately are the ones casting their votes. But special interest groups have huge affects on the voting behaviors of elected officials, and corporations pour millions of dollars into Super PACs that advertise and work on behalf of the donors that want to get something in return. They aren't giving this money away for free.

I can't wait to get a $12 minimum wage, TPP passed, more expensive student loans, weaker healthcare, and Citizen's United permanently enshrined as a Constitutional Amendment.

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Jul 17 2016 11:58am

If given the option I would support less money in politics and I am glad she is pledging as she did even if I am skeptical about the result or intention

I don't want 4000 options of everyone from Roseanne to Billy Bob down the mountain when I go in to vote for President though