Out of the 300 million plus Americans, over 3 million are very rich indeed. Rich enough to buy private education, private healthcare, private security, and private everything they need for life and luxury. These guys do not want or need anything from government except national defence. They perceive government as a mechanism for interfering with their desire to continue stealing all the wealth. Government is acceptable to them only as a source of contracts and business, awarded as political favours. The political process is hugely expensive for candidates who all crucially depend on financial contributions. The main source of contributions is the same 3 million plus wealthy guys. In the American system, the corrupt connection between campaign contributions and political favours in return is absolutely blatant and naked. So all-pervasive is this corruption that it is no longer even perceived as corrupt.
And we get steamed up about "cash for questions" and rightly so. That's the difference between our societies. We just don't have the same values, thank god.
Apparently 35% of Russian wealth is in the hands of 110 people. The world's wealthy: where on earth are the richest 1%? | News | theguardian.com
The UK seems to be only slightly corrupt, at least in comparison with the US. The biggest element is when politicians in power hand over valuable publicly owned assets into private hands, by selling them at a discount. Many examples exist, from British Telecom in 1984 to Royal Mail in 2013. The intention is that those people who accept the bribe will vote for the party which offered it. People who "stag" these share issues have allowed themselves to be drawn into a corrupt practice. Here is a question: Is it more immoral to vote for the party which bribed you? Or to cheat on the deal, and vote the other way?
Indeed. In the USA contributing cash to a politician in return for asking in Congress questions the contributor wants asked, is just normal business - it is done openly, and would not be regarded as corrupt. Contributing cash to a politician only on condition that he votes the way you want on Bills in Congress is also done openly, and regarded as normal. In the UK, for an MP to spend more money on his re-election campaign than the (very low) legal limits is an offence against electoral law. Americans find this hard to comprehend.
The revolving door, as I am sure you are aware, refers to the practice of senior ministers placing lucrative contracts with major contractors then leaving office and joining that same contractor on a large salary. Or is that just normal perfectly legal commercial activity and therefore not corrupt ? The question you pose is a good one, I personally have never 'stagged' any share issues.
In my view it is at least a little corrupt. This is not just about ministers, but also senior police officers, Army generals, senior civil servants, etc. There used to be rules imposing lengthy time limits after leaving public office or posts in public employ, before an individual could take up a related post in a private concern. In recent years, the time limits have been shortened, exceptions are permitted, and the rules are rarely enforced. Standards of probity have been lowered. This is a bad thing. I am not saying that people should not move jobs between the public sector and the private sector, just that higher standards should be applied.
