Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Pete Sessions is currently under investigation for potentially giving special treatment to Allen Stanford, a man convicted of money fraud. Stanford gave a significant amount of campaign contribution to Sessions and hosted lavish trips to places like the Caribbean for Sessions and other members of Congress. According to the report, Sessions may have written a letter to Stanford after his conviction giving words of encouragement and support. All of this makes me think about the general practice of campaign contributions and how it creates a culture of special interests. If a person donates several million dollars to a politician's campaign, the politician is now somewhat bound by the whims and fancies of the donor. If the donor is a health insurance company, then the politician is less likely to support health care reform which would undercut health insurance companies. And all of this is completely legal. We say we don't have corruption in the US government, but I think it's just that we have a legalized form of corruption. Sure, it's not as bad as in India where donors give money that directly lines the pockets of politicians, but in the US donors can still buy influence.
What's the solution? I'm not sure, if we stopped allowing politicians to accept campaign contributions they would all have way less money. However, may be if we limited the amount of contribution any single entity could contribute, we would have a more even playing field. And so what if politicians then have less money to campaign with, maybe that's a good thing. Who really needs politicians campaigning for presidency two years early anyways? What do you guys think. I know this is something Obama had once suggested, but I'm not sure if he followed through with this idea. Do you guys have thoughts or ideas on this?