Does campaign money from interest groups buy influence?

Question

The link below contains a largely graphical representation of the top 100 donors and to whom they contributed. Its easy to read and seems pretty well unbiased. I encourage you to have a look.

Let me qualify my question this way. Money is a fact of politics. Both parties get it. It is a way for groups and individuals to contribute more than a vote for their candidate or issue. I dare say that most voters have contributed in some way, wether they know it or not.

Is the money inherrently dirty, or is it a healthy exercise of rights?

How do you interpret these figures in your own partisan slant?

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.asp?order=A

Answer 1

For a $50 donation, I'll give you the answer you'd like to hear.

Seriously, campaigns are very expensive and candidates spend a huge amount of time fundraising for their next campaign. As a result, significant donors don't necessarily buy more 'influence' but they do tend to get more access to politicians to lobby for their interests.

I would argue that it's not inherently dirty but it does seem to give the wealthy an unfair advantage.

Answer 2

No politician spends his own money for elction. It id given to him by his party out of the kitty made during the party's rule. the most recent example is Manmohan singh threatening private corporates to introduce quota for SC st and obc forcibly. This will give the congress party huge funds from corporates and votes from backward classes.

Answer 3

looks like our officials are for sale and rent, which is why we should give them all two terms now that they've had their first give them a termin prison for selling out their own people

Answer 4

of course

Answer 5

you better believe it my friend!!!