So individuals (such as George Soros) don't have billions of dollars or a disproportionate set of connections? The UAW and NEA don't have a disproportionate set of connections in DC?
Your statements aren't backed up by the facts. According to opensecrets.org a big ol' scary mega-rich industry such as oil and gas has so many "orders of magnitude" more money to throw around and so many disproportionate connections in Washington compared to, say, teachers and education interests that they managed to overspend said education interests by a whopping... 37% over the last 2 decades. Indeed, donations from education interests just barely exceeded those from the entire pharmaceutical industry during that same period (note that this includes soft-money contributions as well). The situation does not appear to be quite as unbalanced as you would suggest.
According to opensecrets.org a big ol' scary mega-rich industry such as oil and gas has so many "orders of magnitude" more money to throw around and so many disproportionate connections in Washington compared to, say, teachers and education interests that they managed to overspend said education interests by a whopping... 37% over the last 2 decades.
You're conflating available capital with actual money needed to win. Suppose we're playing cards. If you've got $100 in your pocket and I've got $1000, I can browbeat you out of the game without spending my whole $1000. I only need to spend until you're out of money or, to mix metaphors, until I've bought up all the TV time and drowned out your contributions with the relevant congress members.
Please rank the following organizations based on their total political contributions (federal and state) in 2008:
National Education Association, PG&E Corp, Service Employees International Union, AT&T Inc., Bank of America, American Federation of State/County/Municipal Employees, Microsoft Corp, Chevron Corp
Bonus points for providing actual donation values.
1. Most of those large donors are groups with earnings directly tied to government decisions.
2. Those unions represent an entire class of workers nationwide, while a corporation represents a subset of the market; the contributions of all corporations in an industry combined represent a more relevant number.
Check upthread a few posts for just such numbers (opensecrets.org also has that data). The idea that corporations have excessively more influence due to campaign contributions than, say, unions just isn't supported by the available data.
Also note that publicly held corporations represent a large number of individual shareholders as well.
The problem, in my view, isn't that there is too much money in politics, that's merely a symptom. The underlying problem is that government has too much control and influence over everything anybody does. That makes it not only attractive but often necessary to maintain influence with and access to government representatives in order to get along.
A concrete real-world example rather than abstract hypotheticals would be very helpful to your point here. Considering the extensive time period before McCain-Feingold took effect there should be many such examples. Do you have any?
Your statements aren't backed up by the facts. According to opensecrets.org a big ol' scary mega-rich industry such as oil and gas has so many "orders of magnitude" more money to throw around and so many disproportionate connections in Washington compared to, say, teachers and education interests that they managed to overspend said education interests by a whopping... 37% over the last 2 decades. Indeed, donations from education interests just barely exceeded those from the entire pharmaceutical industry during that same period (note that this includes soft-money contributions as well). The situation does not appear to be quite as unbalanced as you would suggest.