"I have decided, however, to stop taking offense at the suggestion that we are buying influence"

[krhines]

This is an older article, but I have found it very insightful.

Betsy DeVos wrote a biting op-ed for the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call in 1997 in which she stated that her family did indeed expect a return on their huge investments.

"I know a little something about soft money, as my family is the largest single contributor of soft money to the national Republican Party. ...I have decided, however, to stop taking offense at the suggestion that we are buying influence. Now I simply concede the point."





Read more:http://www.talk2action.org/story/2011/4/20/232844/831/

[unblock]

1. duh. for corporations, in fact, there's no other justification for contributing money.

corporations are obligated to act in a way that maximizes shareholder profit.

it's impossible to justify political contributions without an expectation of higher profits in return.

in elections close enough where contributions could arguably influence the outcome of the election, you could argue that the contributions don't influence politicians' minds, only the outcome of the election.

but many (if not most) corporate contributions are to congress-critters who have a virtual lock on their seat. in that case the obvious inference is that you're buying favorable treatment.


it also amazes me that even when they try to disguise all this legalized bribery, they simply call it "access". well, what the hell good is "access" if not to ask for a return on your contribution?

[krhines]

2. from the article

"I proclaim publicly that I favor ending government involvement in education."


"Pennsylvania could be a case study for nationwide anti-public education partnerships, formed by Religious Right activists joining forces with radical free market think tanks and libertarian-minded investment and hedge fund managers. The movement is billed as the salvation of inner city students; and Democratic politicians, often African American, are portrayed as the heroic champions of children who desperately need access to better education. The need is real, but the claim that this about improving public schools is false advertising."


I'm not sure how much "vouchers" are still being pushed, but I think this shows that ending public education by any means is the real goal.