In Africa, the arrow usually goes money -> power: you want pull with the government, so you buy it.
In the US, the arrow usually goes power -> money. People with power use it to enrich themselves, as this article demonstrates. The reverse almost never happens.
Much ballyhoo is made of "money in politics" and how terrible it is. But those who believe US companies can "buy legislation" are welcome to explain how (e.g.) Google, the second-largest corporation in the US by market cap, was not allowed to build a bridge by the Mountain View City Council (http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2013/12/12/council-deadlocks-on...).
Nothing big. Nothing unethical. Just an ordinary twenty-foot bridge over a creek between two Google offices. Denied for unspecified "environmental reasons", even though the bridge would save thousands of miles of polluting car travel every day. Google offered to conduct an environmental impact review at their own expense, but even that was denied.
> But those who believe US companies can "buy legislation" are welcome to explain how (e.g.) Google, the second-largest corporation in the US by market cap, was not allowed to build a bridge by the Mountain View City Council (http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2013/12/12/council-deadlocks-on...).
A single event doesn't certainly demonstrate anything; a disproportionate amount of "legislation purchasing" happened and is happening - and this is very factual.
If you have a look at what's happening in the sectors... well, all the sectors, but especially the financial, food and military ones, you would have a clear idea of which process are we in.
> A single event doesn't certainly demonstrate anything.
It demonstrates what is possible, not probable, and as long as we keep that in mind, there is nothing wrong with it. My life is string of single events, and I will refuse to believe it "doesn't demonstrate anything."
What I'm saying is that, in a certain context, a single event that highlights that "corporations have relatively little power", doesn't disprove many events highlighting that "corporations have plenty/excess of power".
"In Africa, the arrow usually goes money -> power: you want pull with the government, so you buy it."
Hate to break it to you, but it's the same in America (and most "western" countries). There are too many examples of corruption in our [American] government, in the last 6 months, to even list - from local traffic cams to the new F-35 fighter jet. And it's at all levels of government.
Don't kid yourself, America is not liberty, it's Negative Liberty. And money buys power. it always has.
Keep in mind that this doesn't measure corruption, but perceptions of corruption. If corruption exists, but is not obvious to the average person, then it won't be reflected in the Corruption Perceptions Index.
Is it possible your example of Google actually proves the point? Maybe Google didn't pay the right people in government to get the bridge approved? I don't know anything about this bridge proposal, but I would think that the 'money in politics' issue is less of an issue in regional/city politics than it is in state and federal.
Local representatives look their constituents in the eye on a regular basis. State and federal members don't have the same reminder of who they work for.
> Is it possible your example of Google actually proves the point?
One of the classic signs of a conspiracy theory is that it is not falsifiable: evidence to the contrary is actually evidence of the the theory!
> I would think that the 'money in politics' issue is less of an issue in regional/city politics than it is in state and federal.
Not at all, it's just that it's less money. How do you think the area where Google is got transformed from a rural-ish area full of farms and orchards into what it is today?
> "One of the classic signs of a conspiracy theory is that it is not falsifiable"
The assertions raised absolutely are falsifiable.
You just need to bring the proper data to do so.
The original assertion is that Google's failed bridge proposal is an example that money doesn't buy power.
But that begs the question of whether Google actually tried to buy the result they were looking for. If they didn't expend their money on this issue, it's not at all a counter-example against "money buys power". [1]
Further, one would have to reasonably show that even if Google did expend their money, that they outspent any would-be counter-parties.
So you can definitely falsify the assertion.
You just need the proper data.
[1] Given the peripheral benefits of the proposal, it could quite likely be a reinforcing example. If one can't get even a good project through a political body without paying the right gatekeepers, it only reinforces the original charge.
Yeah, people with a lot less money than Google have railroaded things through the zoning board before. I suspect Google just didn't care that much, it's not like Larry Page was personally making this happen.
Money buys power over time. It's not like you cut a check, "Ok, here's your corrupt deal sir". Think of the law as limestone and money as water -- it'll get where it wants to go, eventually, however circuitously it has to.
> It's not like you cut a check, "Ok, here's your corrupt deal sir".
Well, actually, in truly corrupt places, that is exactly what you do. Perhaps in ways that are less traceable than a check, but yes, you pay people personally to do things in a fairly direct way. That or you intimidate them, like this boy who was held hostage for years, and then disolved in nitric acid in order to get his father to recant his testimony:
That kind of thing happens in the US and elsewhere too, for sure. And I'm not saying money does not buy influence, but it's a different kind of thing. It'd be very difficult to completely level the playing field for those with and without money.
> One of the classic signs of a conspiracy theory is that it is not falsifiable: evidence to the contrary is actually evidence of the the theory!
"Evidence" that could be evidence in either direction isn't useful evidence. :) The theory that they probably failed to pay some party (whether financially or some other form of power-kickback) was my first thought on reading the initial story. It seems to be as valid of a theory as any other without clear evidence pointing either way.
Is that what happened? I honestly have no idea, thus I have no idea whether this incident points towards more or less corruption.
The Power -> Money direction indeed seem to be such, and everyone's picking up on it, including popular culture
"Such a waste of talent. He chose money over power. In this town, a mistake nearly everyone makes. Money is the Mc-mansion in Sarasota that starts falling apart after 10 years. Power is the old stone building that stands for centuries. I cannot respect someone who doesn't see the difference." -- Frank Underwood / House of Cards US
Power is the old stone building that stands for centuries
It really isn't. Politicians fear scandals because the powerbase that they spend many long nights and hard years building can be undone in a heartbeat. "A week is a long time in politics".
I think that's an oversimplification. There are more actors besides politicians and people with lots of money. People like the directors and executives of agencies like the NSA or the CIA, political advisers, board members of the FED and similar organizations, etc.
This is one of the axioms of the show, and it's utter nonsense. It doesn't stand up to rational analysis. Political "power" is incredibly ephemeral and brittle - just look at Chris Christie.
How much did Google spend on lobbying for that brige? In Mountain View, who opposed the bridge?
Maybe the denial had nothing to do with money. I've seen projects denied at the city level for lack of proper permits, zoning, insurance, studies, etc, etc. Even a bad presentation at a council meeting could derail a project (I've seen that too).
Compared to a company like ATT, Google spends peanuts on lobbying. In fact, the whole tech sector does, compared to the health sector, banking, or defense.
It helps too that the local level has much less attention, less stakes, and is much less of an echo chamber. Google's (probably) not going to offer to fund your next city council campaign war chest for allowing them to put a bridge in, but they might fund a senator who could help them crush their competitors on a national, or international, scale. It also helps that at the national level, its often not "me vs you" specifically, but rather amorphous lobbying groups that theoretically represent an industry's wishes. "Don't you want to help promote strong, beneficial laws for competitive American businesses?" vs "Want to do me a favor?"
Money does have a big influence on politics, but only indirectly. Each factor of two a politician outspends their competitor in an election by only tends to get them another 1% of the vote. Not nothing, but not really worth the appearance of corruption that you risk if you just give your donors what they want.
But the important thing that money does is allow you to hire lobbyists. Congresspeople need to pass legislation on a wide variety of issues. As anybody who's ever heard their rep talk about the "intertubes" knows, our legislators aren't necessarily experts on everything. The executive branch gets around this by hiring experts, but somehow we've decided to steadily cut Congress's staffing budget for the last few dozen years.
But there are a class of people who are personable, who have been cultivating relationships with the right people for years, and who have persuasive sounding plans for legislature that could "Save America and benefit your constituents" who are perfectly happy to step up to help out. And if their advice isn't exactly impartial, well, I honestly worry a bit more about incompetence than venality so I won't say this is the worst possible thing. But I'd be very supportive of any motion to say, bring back to the Office of Technology Assessment[1] or such.
And many of the other things the article brings up are just standard Public Choice[2] problems. Taxi cab drivers will vote as a block to stop Uber, consumers will vote based on other issues. Dealership owners and employees vote for state legislators, Teslsa employees are mostly off in some other state and consumers have more important things to care about, etc.
In the US, the arrow usually goes power -> money. People with power use it to enrich themselves, as this article demonstrates. The reverse almost never happens.
Much ballyhoo is made of "money in politics" and how terrible it is. But those who believe US companies can "buy legislation" are welcome to explain how (e.g.) Google, the second-largest corporation in the US by market cap, was not allowed to build a bridge by the Mountain View City Council (http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2013/12/12/council-deadlocks-on...).
Nothing big. Nothing unethical. Just an ordinary twenty-foot bridge over a creek between two Google offices. Denied for unspecified "environmental reasons", even though the bridge would save thousands of miles of polluting car travel every day. Google offered to conduct an environmental impact review at their own expense, but even that was denied.