The political world has been all about donations and business. The rich are getting richer, and there is more money being spent and made every day. The problem is that the rich are still buying their politicians.
In the past, you would think governments would be taking donations and making it work, but it’s not the case. Governments are getting richer and richer, but business is still spending and making the money. So with no clear-cut policies, we are left with some corporations not funding their politicians and others that are funded but not spending. While we’re at it, the rich don’t give to charity, and all the politicians who get rich are not spending to raise money for the poor.
Companies are getting richer and richer, but politicians are spending less. So are the rich, but not as much as before. This has caused a lot of controversy recently. For example, when I was a high school student these were the politicians that were getting rich, and the firms that were doing the same thing were getting poorer.
IBM, one of the more prominent companies that has been donating to charities like Oxfam, is just one of many large companies that do this. As the article points out, this leads to companies giving less to charity, and more to lobbyists and political campaigns, because it’s not in their best interest to do so. But these big companies are, in fact, spending less.
This is pretty good news for the companies, because they don’t have to be the ones actually doing the giving. But it’s bad news for the rest of us, because as I said before, there’s not much we can do about it other than maybe complain. Of course, a lot of companies don’t actually pay much of this, or they make less of it than they ought to.
Companies are, generally speaking, not in the business of donating money to charities. They are in the business of making money from making money. And they make their money by sucking up to politicians, lobbying firms, and the media. All of this costs money. We have to pay for it in both direct and indirect ways. The direct ways are, in the end, the ones you’d be most likely to volunteer for because you know that it will keep you busy for years.
If companies just donated money directly to charities they would have to find a way to keep their lobbyists happy. Which is a problem because more and more lobbyists are getting rich in the lobbying game. We have seen this with the recent appointment of the Koch Brothers as the new members of the Senate.
I’m not sure how much direct donations affect lobbying anyway, but indirect ways of donating money do. Companies have to be able to get their lobbyists to vote for legislation or they will never get elected. And because of the nature of lobbyist-donated legislation, it’s very difficult to stop it because of the amount of lobbying that happens.
In the US, lobbying firms and lobbyists get paid. The more that they work on a bill, the more money they earn (and they don’t look so hot if they’re not making money). Companies can get money from the federal government by passing legislation, and if they are lobbying on behalf of their industry, they can receive money from the government for their work. This means that companies can lobby on behalf of other people, and they can lobby on behalf of other companies.
Of course, this isnt that uncommon in business. Companies get money from the government for their lobbying work, as well as the federal government. The companies lobbied on behalf of by companies and the companies lobbied on behalf of by other companies are both the same thing. This means that companies can lobby on behalf of other companies.
