Money is power. High volumes of money create extraordinary power. Extraordinary power creates corruption. History supports this conclusion. Not only is this conclusion logical; it's plain old common sense. Those who believe the opposite are naive at best. Besotted with ideology at worst. Unlimited amounts of money donated to political candidates, parties, super pacs, and the so-called "social welfare" pacs, are not and should not be protected by the First Amendment.
Big money makes politicians its slaves. Politicians have to spend an enormous amount of time fundraising just to stay in office. 9 out of 10 times, the person who raises more money wins the election. They use that big money to flood advertisements all over the place. Which makes raising money the number 1 priority for politicians. Once they get in office, they're beholden to the same monied interests that got them there. They become essentially prostitutes to big money. If they don't do what big money wants, then in the next election cycle, big money will fund there opponent and they will lose their office. In the end, big money wins and that's why its the biggest problem in america right now. Our politicians don't represent us. They represent there donors. Our democracy has essentially been sold to the highest bidder.
Yes, it is evident that big money is buying U.S. Politics, and that politicians nowadays care more about how much they can make from big money rather than protecting the rights' of U.S. Citizens. People with big money can promote their own agenda whether or not it is in the best interest of the citizens.
Big Money is buying politics and it has been this way for a while now. It truly sad that our government has come to this. Anyone that has any type of clout in the government was backed or is getting backed by big money. It is very shady in my opinion.
This debate can be broken down into two separate arguments, policy and politicians. First, policy, there is no evidence to suggest that politicians change there stated policy goals after receiving big money in a pac or otherwise, most of the time big money will follow the politician who already has policy goals in line with the donor. Second, politicians, the amount of money spent on a political campaign is often not a factor in the outcome of that election. Jeb bush was the most funded Republican in the primaries, and he lost. Hillary Clinton was the most funded in the presidential election, she lost. In the south Carolina special election for a house seat Ralph Norman, a Republican, defeated Archie Parnell who was more funded. I can go on and on, money doesn't buy you a seat at the table, votes do.
To anyone who suggests that us politics are or have been taken over by big money either need to show evidence of that fact, or realize that money doesn't mean much. After all what wold be more influential 5 million dollars donated to Donald Trump from Fox news, or fox news kissing his ass for an entire election season?
U.S. Politics is not currently being bought by big money, as the President is trying to lessen the effect that big money has when it comes to politics. I think that there is a new way of doing things in Washington DC, and the ear of big money moving political decisions is over right now.
The only reason I can say no to this question is because in the recent elections big money was allowed to contribute an astronomical amount of money and they did. I recall some complaining that despite having thrown more money than they wanted to admit complaining that they had lost nevertheless. As long as people who vote can still think for themselves money will influence how many commercials they see but not what they think of them.