• @9point6@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    10
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Inequality breeds the corruption you’re talking about.

    If a billionaire can come along and give a politician (or their campaign, or whatever loophole is used) a sum of money several magnitudes higher than what they earn in a year, and that same value being effectively a rounding error for the billionaire, you’re going to get lobbying and bribes. As the saying goes, everyone’s got a price.

    You don’t get close to that rich by playing by the rules and being a nice person, so they’re not suddenly going to draw the line that they should behave ethically with governments—it’s just another business relationship they can leverage for profit.

    You cannot solve political corruption whilst there is inequality. The people benefiting know this, and will lobby to protect or increase the inequality.

    • JasSmith
      link
      fedilink
      -110 months ago

      That’s an excellent argument to restructure your electoral system. Most other countries don’t allow rich people to buy politicians. It’s not an argument against inequality specifically. Democracy is how you affect change. If you want money out of politics, vote for it. Start with local elections. One of the most promising trends I’ve seen in American electoral reform is single transferable voting (STV). Of course entrenched parties on both sides resist it when they have a commanding lead, but with enough grassroots support, it will become the norm in primaries in our lifetime. This means, for example, Bernie Sanders getting the nomination instead of Hillary Clinton. How much different would America and the world be if that had happened?

      • @Serdan@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        410 months ago

        Most other countries don’t allow rich people to buy politicians.

        Billionaires can always find ways to bankroll their ideology, even if they can’t buy elected officials directly.