Yo,I have traveled enough in India to know about rigged autorickshaw and taxicab meters... the guys have been doing that ever since the British left the country!<g>
DIPY SAYS
Btw, in your country, the bribe money demanded by corrupt government officials has TRIPLED IN JUST
5 YEARS!!!!
Congratulations! ;-)
deccanherald.com
The more you claim that things are changing for the better, the more we find that things are going to the
drain in your India that is Bhaarat.
Please read the previous post DipY. Explain How India is different from here? No evasive answers
Soft Money and Hard Bargain NY Times OP-ED 10/22/99
search.nytimes.com.
But the unlimited amounts that pour
through the soft-money loophole are dangerous.
failing to donate could hurt your company.
- and a $50,000 or $1 million check filtered
through a party as "soft money."
By EDWARD A. KANGAS
You could almost hear the laughter coming from board rooms and
executive suites all over the country when Senate opponents of
campaign-finance reform expressed dismay that anyone could think big
political contributions are corrupting elections and government. On
Tuesday, those opponents prevailed, blocking a final vote this year on
banning soft-money contributions. But the innocent and benign system
described by the Senators arguing against reform hardly passed the laugh
test for those of us on the receiving end of the soft-money shakedown.
For a growing number of executives, there's no question that the
unrelenting pressure for five- and six-figure political contributions
amounts to influence peddling and a corrupting influence. What has been
called legalized bribery looks like extortion to us. The Senators who
oppose reform would be far more credible and receive a sympathetic ear
if they admitted the high cost of campaigns force them to focus on large
contributors, rather than defending the system.
Congress passed laws that would put corporate executives in jail for
offering money to a foreign official in the course of commerce. Now
some of its members express bewilderment when people note that there
is something unseemly about making large payments to the campaign
committees of American elected officials.
I know from personal experience and from other executives that it's not
easy saying no to appeals for cash from powerful members of Congress
or their operatives. Congress can have a major impact on businesses.
The solicitors know it, and we know it. The threat may be veiled, but the
message is clear: failing to donate could hurt your company. You must
weigh whether you meet your responsibility to your shareholders better
by investing the money in the company or by sending it to Washington.
Increasingly, fund-raisers also make sure you know that your competitors
have contributed, implying that you should pay a toll in Washington to
stay competitive.
Unlike individual donations, most large corporate contributions aren't
made as gestures of good will or for ideological reasons. Corporations
are thinking of the bottom line. Will the contribution help or hurt the
company? Despite the protestations of some Senators, everyone knows
big checks get noticed.
Like most Americans, corporate executives also now the issue isn't really
free speech. (You'll notice that the First Amendment argument is more
often made by the listeners, the politicians, than by the speakers.)
Companies don't question their ability to speak forcefully. We have
lobbyists and trade associations, and we provide many jobs -- all of
which help us to be heard. And, as salesmen, we resent the idea that the
only way we can get a chance to make an effective pitch about legislation
is to pay a large fee.
One clear sign of the growing dissatisfaction of corporate leaders with
this pressure is the endorsement by more than 200 business and civic
leaders of a campaign finance reform plan made by the Committee for
Economic Development, a group of chief executives and academic
leaders. This group, of which I am a member, is not saying that all
political contributions are bad or corrupting. We know campaigns cost
money.
But we see what should be obvious to everyone. There's a big difference
between a $1,000 contribution -- the current limit on individuals'
donations to a campaign -- and a $50,000 or $1 million check filtered
through a party as "soft money." The potential for corruption is minimal
at $1,000, or even at the $3,000 level to which our reform plan would
raise individual contribution limits. But the unlimited amounts that pour
through the soft-money loophole are dangerous.
Americans understand the influence of money. It's time to give elections
back to democracy's shareholders -- the voters.
Edward A. Kangas is the chairman of the global board of directors
of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. |
