These people recieving "donations" also have a tendency to vote in favor of policies favoring bug pharma so there's obviously a correlation.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
FDA medical adviser: 'Congress is owned by by pharma”
- Thread starter element252
- Start date
Ok, so once, let's say employees of a Wind Turbine production company in the US have thus far donated 20k to a canidate where is the line where you stop taking donations?
Meanwhile, someone who works for BP as a web developer wants to donate to Democrats, is that ok?
It's true and a really good point that pharma companies are not directly writing checks to politicians.
This is aggregating individual (person) contributions based on where they work (on their disclosure forms).
It's always the same: big companies with highly paid companies will always appear at the top of the list.
This is aggregating individual (person) contributions based on where they work (on their disclosure forms).
It's always the same: big companies with highly paid companies will always appear at the top of the list.
Dark Money by Jane Mayer gives a good breakdown of their structure. That said, politicians like Super PACs. Some claim not to but money buys influence and power.
Thank you, I came here to post this. I'm really tired of the sensationalism in threads such as this. Money in politics sucks but some of the complaints are extremely misleading.
But just think about it for a second: if Congress is co-owned by so many competing interests, then the people would only have to play these groups against each other, and in the ensuing chaos Congress could be manipulated to pass laws that serve the people of the US and before they know what hit them, they will actually do the popular and right thing! It's a brilliant con. I just don't know what to call it. Reverse psycho-democracy?
Because then you're discriminating against people based entirely on who their employer is. That's not acceptable.
If they're being adequately represented, how is this discrimination?
You seem to consider it a right for citizens to be allowed to give money to politicians, equating political support with financial support. It might be that in our society the two are not very different, but is this the society you want?
Let's flip the script then. Let's say you don't have the disposable income to donate to a politician to represent your interests. Does our current system, which conflates financial/political support, then discriminate against poverty?
(Yes it does, to me at least, maybe you disagree.)
Does this system, where financial success translate to increased representation, therefore privilege certain high paying jobs, say, in pharmaceuticals and in software development, over others?
(Again, it does, in my estimation.)
Yes it does. But let's be clear, that's a separate issue. Here we live in a society where individuals can donate. So long as that is true, discrimination based on employee is unacceptable.
I don't see it as discrimination, except from certain libertarian principles that uphold the sanctity of market competitiveness, which is what this sounds like. The political competitiveness of one donor group above another donor group according to their financial clout.
Suffice to say, I don't think the problem of money in politics will be solved if you keep normalizing it. It needs to be phased out, not protected. I think capping donations by industry would help phase it out.
It is objectively discrimination. It is treating people differently based on where they work. You can see it as beneficial discrimination and therefore acceptable, but it is still discrimination.
You won't fix politics by banning individual donations without an alternative. Running a campaign is expensive. What's the alternative? How do you stop rich candidates from massively outspending poor candidates? Donations offset that.
Well, Our democracy age kind of ended in that time actually. As the Princeton study finds that we are currently an oligarchy.
Okay, well then I think you're conflating the literal definition of "discrimination" with the common moral argument against "discrimination", which is that it perpetuates injustice. If an act of discriminating seeks to correct injustice, then it no longer fulfills the moral argument against "discrimination".
For example, there are those who argue that Affirmative Action is "discrimination", which it is in the literal sense. Would you call it unacceptable, then?
So, how do you stop a rich candidate with a donor network from outspending a rich candidate without a donor network?
Just a reminder to many who still dont realize it yet...this country was sold, paid and bought off a long time ago by the big business interest. Country is a plutocracy masquerading as a Democratic republic.
The ultimate goal is Public Financing of elections.
I just think the effort should be put into dealing with Superpacs via disclosure requirements before focusing our ire on individually capped donations.
I'd agree that in general discrimination is not innately bad and can even be beneficial or harmless (affirmative action being a good example of beneficial discrimination). I don't agree that limiting people's rights to share a political opinion or show political support based on their employment is remotely reasonable if the goal is to achieve a fair election.
Hell, this whole article is flawed and misleading. What it describes could happen, but it doesn't necessarily and I'd imagine often does not. A mid level exec is not making political donations based on a hope it will influence a candidate to support actions that benefit the company they work for. That's just not happening. They do it because they support the candidate.
Their political opinions and votes are not impacted anyway, only their financial contribution. Asserting that their financial contribution being restricted is an act of discrimination reinforces the concept that financially contributing to politics is a right, and if people do consider it a right they will continue to fight for it. Your fight for temporary "equality" in an unequal system comes at the cost of perpetuating that unequal system, you might want to think about whether you think the trade-off is worth it.
I'll probably go with the chair of the FDA's Committee on Analgesics and Anesthetics here.
You're entitled to your own opinion of course, I just don't know where you get the self-confidence second-guess someone who's in a much better position to understand the problem of Pharma money than you are, who's actively involved in the fight against the opioid epidemic. If you have counterexamples or counterarticles, feel free to provide them.
Donating to a political candidate is a right. It's just not a constitutional right. But as long as some can do it, fairness should indicate that everyone can.
I don't think someone who works for an agency gets a particularly large amount of insight into why Congress does what it does. That said, I suspect he's right and that corporate money matters a lot. I'm just not convinced that individual donations are how these companies exert their influence. I think they do so through PACs.
Money shouldn't be what drives policy and policymakers in the first place. It's the issues and needs of their constituents. You'd be playing a game that you couldn't ever win because the 1% already controls more wealth than the remaining population does.
Why are you failing to grasp the crux of the issue? If the Democrat supported by the it guy financially keeps supporting his industry irrespective of the consequences to the populace thats a problem. Eg voting for BP environmentally destructive behavior because most of his financial base are workers from bp
Last edited:
[Ron Howard] He won't.
That's what happens when the right is organised and the left isn't.
?
Pharma buyout of politicians is bipartisan, what are you smoking? Is Pharma "the right" now?
OP
OP
Yeah, I committed an error when typing it out. But yes, you are correct. My bad.
I know everyone is bought off by corporate interest/lobbyists, well except perhaps politicians in the mold of Sanders and Cortez. But I shared this because I thought it was important to show that some of the Democratic presidential nominees are beholden to money from pharmaceutical corporations. Especially Sen. Gillibrand and Beto.
Nancy Pelosi receives a great deal of funding and support from the Health Insurance industry.
Last edited:
The maximum contribution someone can make to a politician running federally in Canada is $1,600. And there are strict laws for corporate and union donations to Parties. Americans need to take money out of their politics and then they may be able to actually have a voice.