Yes, you read the title right. Lately, I've been thinking about the many flaws in the world's main examples of democratic societies; politics based
on money from lobbyists and corporations; external influence. I decided to write a thread based on my own question, sparked by the recent thread on
corporatism in America, which can be found here:This is not Socialism...it is
Anyways, here is what I've been thinking: As many as you would like to deny it, there ARE some honest politicians out there in the system willing to
obsolete the ways of capital greed and make the system work for you. Many of you will think of Ron Paul as the most popular example. However, these
"Honest" policies usually require a heavy overhaul of our current system, along with an end to large corporate influence in the world, major
countries and their political systems. It's basic knowledge to know that politicians host campaign parties and raise funds in various ways, along
with climbing a corporate ladder to gain influence and prominence in some of the worlds biggest companies, ultimately opening visible and private
doors to "behind-the-scenes" opportunities that allow them to sway and influence the masses in one way or another,subtly or not. All in all, it
comes down to money, the amount the politicians have, and where they get it from; whether it be oil, insurance, wall street, or other lobbyists, and
it's what they use to win and gain influence most effectively.
So, if you believe what I just said, then we can conclude that where the money comes from is a very important aspect as to who gains the power. Of
course, some of you will argue that there is no solution and that the winner is predetermined by the powers that be, but I sincerely believe that the
influence from TPTB comes in this very subtle form. In saying this, I believe it can be (potentially un-realisticly) resolved by one thing:
Equal funding to parties from the state; campaign functions gathering resources from the tax payer.
Yes, I know this statement alone will leave much to be resolved, and has many flaws, but I'll get to that yet. For now, just think about it: Say if
the two biggest parties (yes, I know, just funding for the two biggest already makes my system flawed, but stay with me here...) such as Republicans
and Democrats, or in Canada, Conservatives and Liberals were equally funded by Government (taxpayer) funds, both parties with enough money to make
their campaigns and whatever functions are involved with the electoral season, and make their platform known. If both parties are allotted "X"
amount of dollars to get their point across to the public, there can be no bias from any side except the very political ideologies from the party
itself; on the surface, this nearly eliminates the outward influence from corporations because they have no way to (legally) participate in the
Of course, like many solutions that could be too good to be true, there are several flaws to this problem. Like I already outlined, if the countries
two biggest parties' platform is paid by taxpayers, it would only be equal to fund all other parties such as Green Parties, the Rhino Party,
Marxist/Leninist Party, Communist Party, Anti-Labour Party, etc. However, on top, I would like to leave you with this:
If we can look at this at the surface for a moment, wouldn't an electoral race, both main parties (or however many "major" parties are running in a
race) funded by us, the people, both parties with the same amount of money having to utilize it in the best possible way, give the general populace
along with those political leaders that don't have the corporate sway like others do, equal footing to make a decision on who to vote for based
solely on the ideologies of the parties, and the political leaders a chance to display what they believe based solely on their own ideologies, and not
the external influence of corporations?
Corporations, private funding and catering to lobbyist groups have seemed to generate a bias within the democratic electoral system, a system plagued
by consumer-saturated corporatism, and I believe that a complex system based on a funding from the public tax payers base of resources is the best way
to solve this problem. Maybe a little bit to socialistic for some of you?
Let me know!