http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0xLSXw89...re=related

(March 18, 2011 at 4:28 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: It should have an influence, but shouldnt run the show.

Can you explain why?

It seems to me that politics has no role in being a public servant anymore! It's because they are in it for the cash. Without the giant cash flow... no :insert corrupt official here: can fuck you over for the sake of his or her pocket.

(March 18, 2011 at 9:21 pm)HeyItsZeus Wrote:

(March 18, 2011 at 4:28 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: It should have an influence, but shouldnt run the show.

Can you explain why?

It seems to me that politics has no role in being a public servant anymore! It's because they are in it for the cash. Without the giant cash flow... no :insert corrupt official here: can fuck you over for the sake of his or her pocket.

Well
http://www.euractiv.com/en/pa/public-vot...ews-498776

Quote:Michael Mann, spokesperson for Commissioner Šefčovič, said "we recognise that lobbying is a legitimate part of the decision-making process and that’s why we want to make it as transparent as possible".

Altrough the US as more stringent rules, the EU lobbying is far less corrupt, maybe it's because in the EU the lobbyists have to fight for EU politicians time and not the other way around, maybe it's just different values

EDIT: DERP DERP, SORRY bad example this one is more fitting

Quote:"Lobbying is a good thing and benefits democracy when it is done in the right way. It’s good to ask the experts on something how a new law will affect them, and it is an important part of the democratic debate. Lobbyists aren't all evil people," he said.

Nevertheless, he recognised that when thousands of lobbyists are competing for access to EU officials, "it's clear that some will use different tactics to others". "Lack of transparency and the dishonesty of some lobby groups are two of the biggest problems," Jørgensen said.

Quote:A pure democracy exists somewhere between superstition

As opposed to a pure pluto-kleptocracy which is what rich cocksuckers have constructed in the US.

None of this would be a problem if money had no place in elections officially and government didn't have the sort of power the corporates need to set up their favorable conditions to begin with - Banning private donations would be easily gotten around by back room deals, removing the ability of the government to give businesses subsidies, impose taxes on their foreign competitors, dictate the terms and conditions of unions would be far more effective.

You can't expect to both make government bigger AND remove the motivations and opportunities for it's corruption.