That's true but the left at least calls for some restraint on the role of money in politics. The Republicans (McCain was an honorable exception) want to throw the gates as wide as possible for unlimited contributions, secret contributions, foreign contributions. If it was up to progressive Democrats, there would be much stricter limits on how much money could be poured into political campaigns, particularly by large and influential donors. The more politics is driven by money, the more politicians are dependent on special interests and corporations. Both sides play in the system, but at least one side occasionally fights the system (not nearly as hard as I'd like).
You'll never get money out of politics until you get politics out of money.
I've always been a big fan of the corporate income tax, because it's the closest thing we have to a national sales tax and thus the only way to force many low-income people to cough up some taxes. So when Sarah Palin in a speech some months ago proposed abolishing the CIT, I was aghast ... until I read her rationale. Her rationale is that corporate taxation is one of the biggest drivers of corporate lobbying in D.C. and that abolishing the CIT would eliminate a lot of the reason that corporations are driven to lobby (and bribe) in D.C.
I can't say I entirely agree, but it's an interesting take.
Jeez, I went looking for a link for Palin's speech on this. I found lots of commentary (pro and con) on it, but not the speech itself. I'm sure it's out there.
