While America is officially a democratic republic, we are a de facto plutocratic republic where the American people are sold out to the highest bidder by how campaigns are financed, and by the actions of lobbyists. Over the years SCOTUS hasn't been particularly helpful on this issue, whether it be declaring that corporations are people, that money is free speech, or that corporations can donate to politicians indirectly via PACs (e.g. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission). Bribes for politicians have been defined as an explicit quid quo pro arrangement, and campaign contributions are seen as free speech, but if you look at these principles, they just don't hold up to scrutiny as I'll describe below: If a politician knows that a certain pharmaceutical company donated to a PAC for their campaign (as if PACs really stop corruption), and they know from that pharmaceutical company's lobbyist exactly what the interests of the pharmaceutical company are, then they're going to be motivated to vote in favor of the pharmaceutical company's interests in order to continue to get campaign funds in the future. And of course the dinners and sex with lobbyists might make them want to reciprocate even more (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...can-officially-screw-politicians-legally.html). This is no different from a bribe in its effect, it's just executed in an indirect, wink-wink-nudge-nudge sort of way. In order to prevent bribery of politicians, we need to outlaw them knowingly receiving gifts from special interests at all. In healthcare, we've had an analogous situation, sadly. Doctors used to be widely manipulated by pharmaceutical companies using attractive and charismatic people known as drugs reps who function much like lobbyists. The drug reps would go from doctor to doctor, giving them drug samples like some kind of drug dealer, pens, and then take them out to dinner... maybe have sex with them. I have a relative who used to be a drug rep. The doctors thought they were too smart and too ethical to allow themselves to be manipulated, but analysis revealed that the drug reps were influencing doctors' prescribing habits. So instead of prescribing the best drug for their patient according to evidence and clinical judgement, they were prescribing whatever drugs were being promoted by the drug reps. In the past few decades this practice has declined, thankfully, and this has led to doctors more often prescribing appropriately and improving patient care. If doctors can be manipulated to not do the best thing for their patients with gifts, you can bet that politicians will fare no better. The stakes are high in politics and it should not be tolerated. Gifts - whether it be money, sex, or other favors, are much more like bribes than political speech. The purpose of free speech is to make sure all ideas can be expressed and vetted without fear of government tyranny. This ensures that people can criticize their government, question the status quo with minority viewpoints, and that the marketplace of ideas can operate freely. The purpose of free speech is not to allow corporations, or even rich individuals, to use their wealth to drown out the voices of other people. Here's how I think it should work. Each registered voter should be able to donate a moderate amount of money to a candidate (e.g. $1000 dollars), but only through a system that makes their donation anonymous to the candidate. If the contributions are anonymous, they cannot function as bribes. Other than general government election funds, no other sources of funding should be allowed. Corporations cannot donate money to a candidate, directly or indirectly, or advertise on their behalf. But of course individuals who work for the corporations will have the same opportunity to contribute as the rest of us. Lobbyists should be allowed to speak to representatives to make their case, but they should not be allowed to lavish gifts upon representatives. Violations of this should be a felony. While I do believe what I described about changing how campaigns should be financed would work better, and certainly be more democratic (if a lot of people support a candidate, they will receive more campaign contributions), I'm not sure how we can get there. We can't count on SCOTUS, and I'm sure Washington insiders prefer to be well-paid whores as opposed to stewards of sensible government. Maybe a Constitutional Amendment would be required? What do you think should be done?
Plutocracy, as you describe it, exists in all democratic countries. The point about a Republic is that [from the Constitution to the bottom] the system of rules is created and configured to make institution work to limit plutocracy within acceptable limits. In other words in a Republic which works properly this equation has got a positive result: R = D - P Republic = Democracy - Plutocracy There is a variant where the result has to be > 2 R = D / P Republic = Democracy / Plutocracy The obvious problem is to evaluate the parameters. Then, it happens that plutocracy grows too much ... it's when the society rebels and the Republic changes [it has happened in early 90's in Italy when the first Republic fell because of a general rebellion against an excessive presence of plutocracy].
Lets say you are correct and we are more of a plutocracy. Can you show that the government would actually be better run without it? I mean the average voter is by definition average and it is rarely the average person that leads in a positive way.
In plutocracy power is measured primarily in dollars invested into politics. Investment is the key word here, because their goal is to expand their wealth/profits by putting a lesser amount of money into it than they will gain by the fallout of political decisions in their favor. This does benefit the wealthy, and their investors, but everything else is sacrificed in its favor. Is the profit of the wealthy the end-all-be-all, or do we have other valid things to worry about in our society? I'd argue that while profit can be a useful tool to motivate people to be productive, it's not so good that everything else should be sacrificed to it. Do we want medicare to prioritize the health of our seniors, or do we want medicare to be hijacked to maximize the profits of the pharmaceutical industry? Do we want our military to defend us from threats, or do we want them to go to war, sacrificing the lives of brave soldiers, in order to boost the profits of companies that make military hardware? Do we want an environment for our great grandchildren to enjoy, or are oil profits more important? Do we want to have an honest discussion about the moral issues facing our society, where people have an equal voice regardless of their income, or do we want to be inundated by propaganda financed by some special interest to drown out our voices? It is not healthy for a society's policies to be determined by the highest bidder. I do think there's a better system out there than representative democracy, but right now I think it would be more productive to try to improve the system we have. Seems pretty clear to me that if the system I described was implemented and enforced, plutocracy would greatly decrease because wealth could not be used to influence elections as easily, if at all really.
That's because Americans nominate idiots and criminals like Trump and Clinton.... Maybe we could elect GOOD people for once on either side?
Plutocracies all seem to have a history of ending with the Plutocrats on the pointy end of the pitchfork. As soon as the army hits that point where they see more sense in supporting the populace than supporting the Plutocrats, things go downhill pretty fast. Could be 100 years could be 500 years, but it happens. I also think we are a long way from that point.
