[kmkemp]

Corporations write trade deals. Corporations literally write laws (by proxy) in many cases. Corporations control the media. Corporations pay trusted 3rd parties to promote whatever agenda helps their bottom line. Corporations aren't evil - they're just (by definition) self-interested entities who have decided that government has a high ROI. Those are all actually very inconvenient for me since power is a zero sum game and I'm on the other end of the equation.

[diminoten]

Corporations don't write trade deals, corporations don't write laws, and corporations don't control the media, unless your definition of corporations is "any group of people", in which case yes, groups of people do literally everything on this planet.

[skh]

I see you missed the by proxy part of the comment you responded to. A lot of the large estates in the South pre Civil War had owners who didn't beat their slaves. Those owners hired people to do it for them. So it would be incorrect to say that those owners beat their slaves.

The above extreme example is merely to show that sometimes the responsible party is not solely those who do the actual deed. There are lots of examples of this concept in criminal law if you want learn more about idea.

It's hard to claim corporations don't control the media when only a few media companies control a large majority of the media in the United States.

[diminoten]

That's like saying the quoted definition of a word or concept is being paid by corporations to "write" whatever the definition is being quoted in.

Industry experts know more about the space that's getting regulated than the lawmakers, so the lawmakers ask for help. Saying "corporations write the law" (by proxy or otherwise) completely misrepresents how laws are actually written.

[kmkemp]

Why do you believe that corporations employ lobbyists? Why do you believe that corporations make campaign contributions? We can imagine that Congress could be composed of members spanning the normal human gamut of morality and then adjust the viable window to account for the system. Given that money is a primary factor in campaigns on this scale, fundraising is important enough that members of Congress spend almost half of their time raising money for their re-election. If someone can get you elected by funding your campaign, they can also fund your opponents instead at any moment. Now, there are probably some members who stand strong in the face of that pressure - and they are more likely to lose than someone who caves - so over time, those members lose their spots. Therefore, the window of morality, I would argue, will naturally get skewed towards those "willing to appease corporations who donate to their campaign". In some cases, that means that laws are written with input from lobbyists (and maybe labor unions as well) and in other cases that will mean that lobbyists literally write the bills themselves (which are still subject to alterations during the process of course). Unfortunately, the system skews Congress over time towards the latter. There isn't a conspiracy theory here - just a math problem and the human condition.

[diminoten]

Because it has some effect, just not nearly as substantial as people here keep claiming.

Does corruption happen? Definitely. Is it rampant? No. It's not "some members who stand strong" it's "almost all members stand strong with some small exceptions, many of whom are no longer in office as a result."

Politics is mostly pretty boring, routine stuff. It's nothing like what's portrayed in the media, stop assuming the most interesting parts are more common than they are...