I don't buy that, in part because campaign money isn't everything or the biggest spender would always win. Take the 2016 presidential election for example where Hillary outspent Trump by 2x.
Why do you think the winner is relevant? When an entity funds your political ambitions, they own you. They fund both the winners and losers.
Lets look at a practical example:
You're the owner of Pepsi and you want to push your product on race car fans.. So you fund a series of race car drivers for the Indy 500, but their contract states they are to remain quiet about your money. You fund all three of the most promising and successful teams.. When team 2 wins, the driver is contract bound to do a commercial for you telling everyone how Pepsi gave him the refreshing taste he needed to win the race...
Does it really matter if driver one, two, or three wins? Nope...
And that's racing.. Picking the most likely winners of a presidential or governing campaign is even easier.
And when a multi-national corporation is involved, all a foreign state has to do is to use a backroom handshake deal. They sign a contract to purchase 100 Million in some product the company produces in exchange for a backroom deal that the company will then put a certain amount of money into a super pac for their favorite candidate..
Reminds me of looking through the pile of lumber at Home Depot for supplies for a project and having to go through it multiple times, each time lowering standards in order to get enough boards to complete the project [ok, I don't want any boards with knots in them... ok, I will accept one knot... ok, I will accept 2 knots... etc.]
^^^That^^^
Our political system is now heavily influenced by foreign nations.. If they don't reverse it within the next two or three elections, the USA will most likely collapse under its own political infighting.
Our laws need to be changed. If the supreme court wants to give corporations a voice, fine.. but like most other freedoms, including that of speech and religion, guns, etc., those freedoms need to come with some rules.
Rule 1) Only domestic corporations with exclusively domestic sales may have person-level freedom of speech. If your company does more than a certain trivial dollar amount of international sales, then your political campaign donations must abide by the old rules.. which limited campaign donations to some very small figure I can't recall at this moment.
It is the SCOTUS ruling (FEC vs Citizens United) that allowed this foreign interference, and now that foreign interference is using a "divide and conquer" strategy. Do you see it working?
Our country is a nation of ignorant morons.. Our national average IQ level is something like 6 or 8 points BELOW China.. Do you really think we can win against a country that is more intelligent than we are?
There's a member in this forum who thinks we might be contaminating our galaxy with life from our space probes.. And if you think that doesn't ring the gold prize for stupidity and ignorance, he has more than one comrade arguing in support of him. The citizens of our country have become arrogant, entitled, ignorant, and have somehow acquired a hyper level Dunning Kruger affliction that makes them think they're smart if they can spell GOOGLE. Its not just a bad combination, its a dangerous one.
www.bbc.com
