Post by account_disabled on Feb 22, 2024 5:46:56 GMT 1
What is the relationship between globalization, privatization and neoliberal democracy? The answer is as simple as it is concrete: money. Liberal democracies protect economic power over any other humanistic value. And as for participating in politics, whoever has money participates; whoever doesn't have it is left out. Supporters of the liberal regime recognize their dependence on money. Several countries are seeking financing laws that establish the money that large corporations can contribute to political parties. But to believe that this situation only exists in recently democratized countries is, to say the least, naïve. Countries with a long history of liberal democracy have the same problem. The idea that the United States is a democracy in its purest form is widespread, but for many years now, from the cradle of the Empire, more and more voices have been heard denouncing the “plutocratic” nature of neoliberal democracy in the United States. Marty Jezer, a well-known American activist, stated in Money in Elections, a monthly publication of the Washington Times, (August 1996) the following: "Money is the greatest determinant of political influence and success.
Money determines which candidates will be able to win." to drive effective campaigns and influence, which candidates will win elected office. Money also determines the parameters of public debate: what issues will be put on the table, in what framework they will appear, and how legislation will be designed. Money allows the rich and powerful interest groups influence elections and dominate legislative processes.” Marty Jezer Marty Jezer The financing of US political parties is a clear example of what Marty Jezer stated. American Costa Rica WhatsApp Number politicians talk about soft money and hard money to refer to how money flows to parties. Hard money is established by the Federal Electoral Campaign Law, which sets the limit of the contribution that individuals, political parties and Political Action Committees can make; The latter are made up of organizations that raise funds for electoral campaigns. The law does not allow corporations or unions to make direct contributions, but they can form Political Action Committees that raise money from their employees or members. These committees can allocate unlimited sums of money in favor of certain candidates. Soft money are contributions that are not regulated by the aforementioned law, therefore it does not contemplate the limit of money that can be given to the National Committee of a political party.
Theoretically, this money cannot be used to induce voting in favor of any candidate, but propaganda is still made, the only word that should be omitted is "vote for.Contributions of "hard" money greatly exceed those made in "soft" money. But it's all a game of simulation since both kinds of money come from the same sources. In reality, the number of Americans who contribute to campaign financing is very small. According to the US Census Bureau, during the 2000 elections both George Bush and Al Gore received the majority of individual contributions from people whose income exceeded $100,000 annually, (12% of American families . And more than 50% of the money comes from Washington DC, where the lobbies have their offices. Poor rich countries There is another very curious factor in the North American electoral system: candidates can contribute their own money to promote themselves. In the 2000 campaign, Democrat Jon Corzine, a former employee of the financial company Goldman Sachs, contributed million to his candidacy for senator for the state of New Jersey. But it is the large companies that contribute the most, especially those that have an interest in the legislation being tilted in their favor.
Money determines which candidates will be able to win." to drive effective campaigns and influence, which candidates will win elected office. Money also determines the parameters of public debate: what issues will be put on the table, in what framework they will appear, and how legislation will be designed. Money allows the rich and powerful interest groups influence elections and dominate legislative processes.” Marty Jezer Marty Jezer The financing of US political parties is a clear example of what Marty Jezer stated. American Costa Rica WhatsApp Number politicians talk about soft money and hard money to refer to how money flows to parties. Hard money is established by the Federal Electoral Campaign Law, which sets the limit of the contribution that individuals, political parties and Political Action Committees can make; The latter are made up of organizations that raise funds for electoral campaigns. The law does not allow corporations or unions to make direct contributions, but they can form Political Action Committees that raise money from their employees or members. These committees can allocate unlimited sums of money in favor of certain candidates. Soft money are contributions that are not regulated by the aforementioned law, therefore it does not contemplate the limit of money that can be given to the National Committee of a political party.
Theoretically, this money cannot be used to induce voting in favor of any candidate, but propaganda is still made, the only word that should be omitted is "vote for.Contributions of "hard" money greatly exceed those made in "soft" money. But it's all a game of simulation since both kinds of money come from the same sources. In reality, the number of Americans who contribute to campaign financing is very small. According to the US Census Bureau, during the 2000 elections both George Bush and Al Gore received the majority of individual contributions from people whose income exceeded $100,000 annually, (12% of American families . And more than 50% of the money comes from Washington DC, where the lobbies have their offices. Poor rich countries There is another very curious factor in the North American electoral system: candidates can contribute their own money to promote themselves. In the 2000 campaign, Democrat Jon Corzine, a former employee of the financial company Goldman Sachs, contributed million to his candidacy for senator for the state of New Jersey. But it is the large companies that contribute the most, especially those that have an interest in the legislation being tilted in their favor.