Quote Originally Posted by alan View Post
But wouldn't that same minority still exert influence on politicians once elected by promising to steer business capital into specific districts or by offering post election employment or by favors to family, friends, associates? If that minority is indeed exerting undue influence on politicians through campaign contributions, once denied that avenue, won't another one simply become the favorite way of buying influence?
Funneling money to one's district no matter how it it used is pork (getting that new local highway to nowhere built afterall). What loose is talking about is just general funneling of tax money and favored laws to corporations that have donated a lot irrespective of locality, which is a separate problem. Neither one is good, but taking corporate money out of the election process would probably do a lot to fix the second problem, whereas I'm not sure any even hypothetical fix exists for pork barrel politics.

Personally, I think that if buying influence is as common as some might believe, it would be better to diminish the amount of influence available.
But if buying influence is as common as some might believe, this is equally impossible. Why? Because you try to cut government spending on something that is overwhelming benefiting some corporate cronies say, but because those corporate cronies have so much say (read money) in government it can't as a practical matter be done.