"corporations commonly account for 3 of every 4 political donations to congressional campaigns"

[welshTerrier2]

let me put this succinctly: YOUR CANDIDATE SUCKS. the following chart from a popular political indicator was posted by DU'er GreenPartyVoter in this thread ...

some have complained that the candidates never actually took the test, and hence, the projection of how they might have responded is speculative. this is an inadequate criticism. it is perfectly appropriate to use a candidate's track record and speeches to assess how they would have responded had they taken the test. the only valid defense would be to show how their actions and statements were not properly applied. no one has done this yet. to take the "best available data" and apply it to an indicator is a perfectly appropriate method. here are the results of the test:



and here are the compiled and summarized results of the same test taken by DU'ers as posted by DU'er TahitiNut:



now, one little test proves nothing all by itself. but what do the test results indicate? what issue, what single issue, must be more important than all the other issues combined? under what umbrella does every issue reside? what is it that ultimately determines the policies and actions of our government on all issues? the answer should be very simple: fundamental DEMOCRACY; unfortunately, that is just NOT the case.

To land in the upper right quadrant in the above political test empowers a corporatocracy that renders citizen empowerment impossible. It creates a system of governance that yields to such disproportionate power that the vote of the individual, even the best efforts to effect change by the individual citizen, becomes virtually meaningless. Our representatives are funded by the corporatocracy. The laws they pass and the policies they enact are obliged to serve only one master and it clearly is NOT We the People. I say YOUR CANDIDATE SUCKS because, with perhaps only one or two exceptions, your candidate has not acknowledged this democratic defect as the central core of their campaign. What we are left with are pseudo-solutions that cannot ultimately bring about the changes we need. The system as it stands today has been built for and by the corporate state. Status quo enablers, with their hands out for campaign contributions, will never change the underlying corruptions of our democracy.

I am currently reading one of the most powerful non-fiction books I've ever read. BTW, Al Gore's book has finally arrived at my library and that's in the on deck circle. The current book is entitled: America Beyond Capitalism: Reclaiming Our Wealth, Our Liberty, and Our Democracy. The author is Gar Alperovitz. Here are a few excerpts, especially relative to my discussion above, from the chapter I just read:

"The influence that corporations wield over government and the economy is so vast and obvious that the point needs no elaboration ... Democratic governance, at the federal, state and local levels, goes on. But its ability to affect our lives is limited." <skip>

A 2002 Gallup poll found that 2/3 of respondents believe that "no matter what new laws are passed, special interests will always find a way to maintain their power in Washington." The deeper issue is thus profoundly challenging: even the most far reaching reforms are unlikely to succeed, it appears, given the underlying pattern of inequality. <skip>

A host of studies have documented some of the most obvious realities. The large corporation regularly:

1. influences legislation and agenda setting through lobbying
2. influences regulatory behavior through direct and indirect pressure
3. influences elections via large-scale campaign contributions
4. influences public attitudes through massive media campaigns
5. influences local government choices through all of the above - and adds the implicit or explicit threat of withdrawing its plants, equipment, and jobs from specific locations.

It all boils down to this: either your candidate sees the massive defect corporations represent in our democracy and speaks against them and fights against them, or, regardless of what little bandaid solutions they might propose, no real change will be possible. I've heard elements of this recognition from Kucinich and to a lesser extent from Gravel and from Ron Paul. I've heard nothing on this subject, certainly not as a central theme, from any of the other candidates. If I've missed statements from your candidate, please feel free to provide some details. I'd consider it very good news. In the absence of such information, your candidate is a corporate enabler. And corporate enablers, regardless of the pretty words and programs they might offer, are serving someone other than you and me.