by Burke McKay

Created on: December 06, 2008

Many people would say that "Big Business" does unduly influence Government, and though they are not wrong, they are incorrect. This may seem to be a "self-contradictory" statement, but as is so often the case, it is in the contradiction that we may find the truth.

Every election must be funded. Commercials, travel, speaking engagements, speeches at local events, operating expenses, and staff to keep everything organized represent a significant investment that individual contributions just don't cover. No matter how it is looked at, a political campaign is a sales and marketing campaign designed to see the voting public on the merits of one candidate over another; you "buy" by voting. Contributions in the tens, hundreds, or even thousands of dollars just don't meet the costs incurred.

This is where "Big Business" enters the picture. The millions of dollars required for any candidate to mount a successful run for office can only be met by the deep pockets of the businesses in the area where the candidate is running. The larger the area, the larger the price, the larger the investment of business, and the larger the businesses involved. These businesses invest in one candidate, or the other, with the expectation of profit.
A large business may provide the candidate with marketing specialists to guide his/her campaign, supplement funding for sundries, and provide a portion of their advertising budget for "air time" for the candidate. This kind of support is very expensive, and it would not make sense for any business to support a candidate that would not return to the business a profit for their investment.

On the national scale, major corporations tend to give support to both candidates, though one will be favored over the other. They do this to insure that whichever candidate is elected will be "grateful" to them. This "gratefulness" is manifested through contracts {generally worth several times more than the initial investment in the candidate}, tax breaks, tax loopholes, "pork" add-ons in bills, and preferential/deferential treatment. As the politician profits the corporations that supported him/her, those corporations are more likely to fund their next run for office, and so the cycle repeats.

This relationship, or paradigm if you will, is well known to all; "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours."
The unsavory aspect we tend to ignore is that the investment is a form of purchase, and it is the politicians that are selling, and sold. Businesses, large and small,

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>