Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 13th, 2012, 05:20 PM   #11

Kotromanic's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Iowa USA
Posts: 1,426

Regarding the McKinley-Bryan election in 1896, there is an oral tradition from industrial Chicago that shortly prior to the election working men were gathered together at the end of their shift and told by a representative of the owners:
"The owners don't have an opinion on how employees cast their vote in the election. However, if Bryan wins on Tuesday, employees need not bother to come to work on Wednesday."
Kotromanic is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 13th, 2012, 07:12 PM   #12
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 669

Right from the very beginning.

One of the primary interest group movers and shakers behind the movement to adopt the US Constitution was a consortium of land speculation companies charters (that is, incorporated) by some of the landless states.
MAlexMatt is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 12:24 AM   #13
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by unclefred View Post
First, What did Watergate have to do with the influence of big corporate business?

Secondly, perhaps Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial complex is an example that has proven the warning out.
Watergate was used by Nixon to dictate (or at the very least influence) policy of the Democratic party; so that their weakest candidate would stand against him in the elections. This however was funded by big business who had a lot to lose if the Republicans were not re-elected. Which is why in 1974 the amendment was introduced to curb the contributions from corporations to campaign spending; this was also introduced because the Act of 1925 did not go far enough.
riconos is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 02:32 AM   #14

beetle's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2010
From: St. Louis
Posts: 3,292

During most of US history Presidential candidates were selected during party conventions (and senators were appointed by state legislatures.) Now the US has a lengthy primary process for Presidential candidates; senators are no longer appointed, but are elected to office by state-wide voting. In both instances citizens are far more involved than in the past.

In regard to opinions that whoever has the most money wins an election, there are numerous examples which show otherwise. That WWF woman in Connecticut spent money hand over fist (is that a wrestling term?) twice in senatorial races and lost both times. In my own state of Missouri in the recent state elections 3 wealthy candidates outspent their opponents by a great deal, and all 3 lost.

Perhaps the biggest myth in US media/politics is that TV ads persuade voters, so enormous amounts of money are spent on ads which constantly bombard folks during elections (also are the telephone calls of recorded messages urging folks to vote for whomever or whatever.) TV stations make a nice profit on such ads, so they certainly encourage the myth. But the fact is, folks quickly tire of the bombardment of ads and detest the pre-recorded phone calls.

I realize we are not to discuss post-1991 politics, but it seemed to me this was the only way to address the OP person's perceptions. In regard to lobbyists, their main influence is not on supporting certain candidates, but when it comes time to write legislation. This is when all kinds of things are included in bills to protect or promote particular interests.
-------------------------
Historically, the Presidential primary process (though we often complain it is way to long) did much to take away the backroom deals of political power brokers at conventions (as a fact, I'm right now reading a book about the 1880 Republican convention which will lead to the election of Garfield and his assassination by a lone crank.) Candidates must now make their cases directly to citizens. The long process, despite its flaws, allow us time to get to know candidates.
------------------
Powerful corporations emerged in the US after the Civil War. They have been a part of US history ever since. There is a long history of the US commonweal and corporations which does involve politics but, as for candidates, it has not been corporate money by which candidates win election to office, but by their constituencies and citizen supporters. The recent US Presidential election is a huge example of this. For example, Hispanics voted overwhelmingly in favor of President Obama. That had nothing to do with corporate interests or money. Nor did other constituencies which re-elected him have much to do with corporate interests or money (in fact, quite the opposite!!!)
beetle is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 02:37 AM   #15

beetle's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2010
From: St. Louis
Posts: 3,292

Quote:
Originally Posted by riconos View Post
Watergate was used by Nixon to dictate (or at the very least influence) policy of the Democratic party; so that their weakest candidate would stand against him in the elections. This however was funded by big business who had a lot to lose if the Republicans were not re-elected. Which is why in 1974 the amendment was introduced to curb the contributions from corporations to campaign spending; this was also introduced because the Act of 1925 did not go far enough.
Don't be silly. Nixon was one of the most avid creators of federal programs such as EPA, which "big business" certainly opposed. I don't know where you get your opinions from but ... oh well. I have no intention of watering the sidewalk and expecting grass to grow.
beetle is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 10:48 AM   #16
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by beetle View Post
Don't be silly. Nixon was one of the most avid creators of federal programs such as EPA, which "big business" certainly opposed. I don't know where you get your opinions from but ... oh well. I have no intention of watering the sidewalk and expecting grass to grow.
Nixon and the EPA; main reason for its creation; to curb the US from getting ripped off from the rising prices in oil. US Oil companies were still netting MASSIVE profits and so the EPA for me was the brain child of, let me guess, the corporations.
riconos is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 11:44 AM   #17

unclefred's Avatar
The Snub Nosed Truth
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Oregon coastal mountains
Posts: 6,312
Blog Entries: 32

Quote:
Originally Posted by riconos View Post
Watergate was used by Nixon to dictate (or at the very least influence) policy of the Democratic party; so that their weakest candidate would stand against him in the elections. This however was funded by big business who had a lot to lose if the Republicans were not re-elected. Which is why in 1974 the amendment was introduced to curb the contributions from corporations to campaign spending; this was also introduced because the Act of 1925 did not go far enough.
You might provide sources to support your assertions.

Last edited by unclefred; November 14th, 2012 at 11:50 AM.
unclefred is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
corporations, lobbying, politics


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Corporations Vs Government wittgenstein Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 32 December 9th, 2009 08:16 PM
Why are corporations a present danger? coberst Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 4 October 18th, 2009 05:58 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.