Your point was corporations control political climate. I disagree. They try, but there are risk.
I think you're wrong to disagree. One only needs to look at the state level. In 95% of all state races - those with more money win. Whose backing those races? You got it - corporations. Their return on "investment" is gigantic! (let the dumping, drilling, fracking begin!!)
Tax Benefits: Recent research shows that, in expectation for every $1 a firm spends to lobby for targeted tax benefits, the benefit is between 6x and 21x. From a in-your-face marketing point of view, a few have stepped in issues by advertising techniques. Superbowl ads seem to have all gone this way. Look at the number of corporations who have taken liberal stances only to be punished so severely, they've had to step back, Reebok shoes being the latest.
Again, I disagree - the Reebok ad trolling our president was very well received by its core demo.
Further, speaking of the Super Bowl, the Budweiser "Immigration" ad did great for them. Whether or not you want to admit it - this Country is center-left.The quieter angle is supporting causes and candidates through contributions and business dealings. Find me a politician who did that better than Hilary. Oh yea, Bill.
Um, ok... I could name several - but instead, go look at this site to see who is owned by whom - http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/10/congress-corporate-sponsors/
But almost any politician needs support from corporations.
No, they don't. Public finance of elections is very viable. Sadly, the last presidential campaign to rely on it was Carter/Ford.
I don't think the Bern grabbed too much cash or made excessive promises, but we won't ever know because he lost and is finished.
If by "finished" you mean currently the most popular politician in the country... then ok...But other than him, that brings us to Trump.
The point about Trump is he was correctly viewed as not being controlled by a consortium of groups with related interest.
He bragged about "buying politicians". Again, look at his budget! It's laughable how corporate and top 1% friendly it is.Which is why I referenced Jeb Bush. Now there was a guy who was a jigsaw puzzle put together by a committee.
Yeah, by the RNC. Again, as I said - our current president was a vote against establishment, not really a vote for tweety. Had Bernie been given a fair shake, he'd have been president.Say what you want about Trump but he doesn't answer to anyone but himself.
LOL - I think you're wrong, but if you're right - that's pretty scary given his overall incompetence.If he's angling for deals in the White House, at least he's doing them for himself and not as payback. Clinton's had an ATM card from various institutions and foreign entities. The infamous Clinton Foundation, which kept millions from legitimate charities, is all but defunct now that they are both finally gone. That, more than anything else, speaks volumes to how crooked it really was.
Now, don't bring up charities.... our president's "charity" is run like an ATM for his boys. It's laughable how little it's done. C'mon - he bought a painting of himself with earmarked charity money!! My bottom line is I only have a couple things I'm disappointed in with Trump so far.
Pages: 1 
