To the poster who has Lived 'Round Politics –
Thank you for your compliment. I do try to think things through before I post on here (or open my mouth for that matter).
However, I must disagree once again with the monolithic "Big Business" concept. If you refer to my previous post, I acknowledge that businesses can and do influence political decisions. If you don't mind me getting theoretical for a moment, I believe wholeheartedly in the concept of "capture theory," whereby regulated industries tend to capture the regulators and influence the subsequent regulations. Also, it would be absurd to deny that some in government would sell their votes to the highest bidder -- Congressman Traficant (sp?) D-OH is a great example. However, it is not the case that businesses are the only buyers, and I've never seen it demonstrated that they are even the largest buyers (I've always heard more about labor unions). Therefore, I don't think the fact that some Congressmen sell votes demonstrates the proposition that Big Business runs government.
As you did point out, my beef comes with the idea that there is some sort of concerted "Big Business" phenomenon whereby all of these disparate groups come together to act for some perceived shared interest. Firstly, even if businesses are not directly competing, they rarely if ever completely share economic circumstances. Therefore, one would expect to see, and does see, coalitions forming and unforming depending upon the issue being considered.
However, one also sees that for almost every big issue out there championed by one special interest, there is another special interest championing the opposing side. For a pair of strange bedfellows, just look at how Big Labor and the steel industry banded together to support the higher steel tariffs, which raised the costs of all the other businesses that use steel and are eventually passed on to the consumers. Of course, those only went through because Bush felt felt the need to endear himself if those big steel/union states he barely won last time around, not because Big Labor and the steel industry lined Bush's pockets on the sly.
Secondly, lets just pretend for the sake of argument that businesses do buy up all the votes in Congress. How would that change the fact that they still have misalligned economic interests on different issues? You would then have a situation in which the Congressmen alligned with one company voted for something and those alligned with a different company with competing interests voted the other way -- and still no monolithic "Big Business."
Businesses are just some of the competing interest groups that attempt to influence the politicians and get them to vote the way the interest groups think furthers their own agendas. They lobby the same way as do other groups like Greenpeace, the AFL-CIO, the NAACP, etc. Do any of them really represent "the people"? Nah. They represent their own interests and ideological viewpoints, which are generally at least somewhat related to the economic interests of the organizations and the political aspirations of the organizations' leadership.
I'll admit that my practical political experience is much less than is my theoretical knowledge base -- my practical experience is limited to working at the grass root level on some campaigns and doing an internship in a Congressional office for a semester while in college. But my experience on The Hill (or lack thereof if you so choose) doesn't really play to the logic of what I'm saying or of empirical and theoretical evidence on the issue at hand.
Finally, you bring up tort reform. As a law student with a couple firm clerkships under my belt and an eye on the legal field, I can quite honestly say that I'm all for some sort of tort reform. The tort system is all out of whack right now, especially w/r/t class action suits where the lawyers reap all the benefits and securities 10b-5 "strike price" suits whereby firms like Millberg Weiss attempt to extort money from every firm that has a bad day on the market. The tort system should not be a wealth transfer from shareholders (who include pension funds, retirement funds, college funds, etc.) to tort lawyers.
As to people with legitimate claims against firms that actually caused their harms, I have no problem with their compensation for those harms. But people should not be allowed to simply target "deep pocket" corporate defendants with an exceedingly peripheral attachment to whatever harm was caused and get them to pay all of giant claims via joint-and-several liability. Corporate profits are not a giant national insurance policy either.
Given stock owners in this country represent more than half the population, I think it's safe to say such reform would be good for the country -- not for the plaintiffs' bar, but for the rest of it. I'm out.
3L T-Man, your analysis are usually well thought out and accurate. However, your assertion that there is no “Big Business” indicates to me your only experience with politics is through reading Richard Posner’s Law & Economics. The plain clear fact is that business interests in the Capital are HUGE. Unfortunately the only proof of this I have is that I have actually been there and done that as it relates to politics. I’ve seen votes bought, one dollar at a time. It’s sorta like sex, you’ve either had it or you read pornography to become an “expert.” Moreover, you act as if it must be the case that large industries are always in a state of competition. This is untrue. Look at tort reform. “Big Business” is getting much help from the government in denying the just claims of helpless victims. In fact, if it weren’t for some really dedicated people in Congress fighting against these measures, it would be a foregone conclusion that tort DEform would pass, closing the courthouse doors to all but the wealthiest.