|
Yeah, but trying to do something about it would be worse politics. If they're in charge of the
money, they can do whatever they want with it. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It corrupts everything, but is is reality. Favours for favours.
If we ignored businessmen, the ones who would accept a little corruption would be the booming
economies in the modern world. Ooops. China, India, Russia. Shame on us all. Their should be as much
media and social attention on business leaders as there are politicians.
Some should be tried with treason.
It is not governments who run the world. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Agreed. I would prefer to see a set campaign fund coming from the taxpayer. This would allow for
an even playing field, less razzamatazz and, most importantly, would cut corruption as you mention
in the summary. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Level the playing field and negate the "paybacks" by elected officials to the filthy rich who have
contributed to their campaign funds! |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
I disagree, we shouldnt be entitled to pay for someone who we dislike or a candidate who wont get
far |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
30 Oct 2008 19:45
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
