Before there's any rustling of the bushes, I'm not directing this solely at President Bush, but rather any and all presidents relying on
heavy campaign contributions from corporate America.
The "war for oil" slogan the last few months is a good example of alleged corporate interests, but this topic isn't to discuss any particular accusations (especially contemporary) of such interests in the Oval Office (*note: no arguments over Iraq motives on this topic). The point is that so much campaign money is donated now for presidential campaigns (and other elected officials) that I feel it has become questionable whether our government works as a representative republic or one representative of corporate interests.
Almost all of us have read articles accusing either Bush President of placing the interests of oil companies and corporate America before the interests of the American people. I've read similar accusations, though not nearly as prominent in the absence of war talk, about Bush Jr. and prominent tobacco companies; Clinton, Reagan (GE), and so on...
While campaigns do, I suppose, require funding, I've heard suggestions that donations in the names of industry should be strictly limited or eliminated.
I'm putting this in Economics and Business because I want to know if people think corporations should have less to do with contributions to presidential campaigns (or any political campaign for that matter).
Do you think corporate donations leave presidential actions as suspect of putting corporate interests in front of the general public?(damaging the credibility of presidential actions)
Should action be taken to reduce, or cease, corporate campaign money?Perhaps we should petition the media to be more conducive to political campaigns, in the interest of American ideas, offering lower cost or free airtime for political ads, televised debates...?