>>1103387
It's simple

>Fund politicians campaign on the grounds they will do whatever you ask
>They do it

>>1103848

What if they just renege afterward or otherwise do not do what you want them to do?

It's not as if the money is anything but a gift. It could just be pissing money away that could be better spent on investments.

>>1103852
I'm sure there are terms and conditions to accepting the money and they would definitely have ways to make sure they can't just turn on them before they invest tens of millions of dollars into their campaign, but I have no idea how exactly.

>>1103856

You can't really put terms on it, though, I'd imagine putting terms on it makes it more than a donation, which could constitute a bribe.

I mean, I'm sure you can say what you expect, but if you tried to put terms and conditions on it your only real recourse after getting screwed over would be 'don't invest in that person again'.

Because if you put terms and conditions on it in a more formal way, that blurs the line between 'donation' and 'bribe' in the legal sense.

And you can't exactly sue a senator for not doing what you wanted them to do when you bribed them. And they certainly wouldn't admit to being bribed.

>>1103860
>which could constitute a bribe.

That's exactly what it is. A bribe disguised as a donation.

And because they're banks with billions of dollars they can do that type of shit and get away with it.

It works apparently. They've been doing it since the beginning.

>>1103387
Banks and investment groups have the most cash so they benefit the most from privatization and deregulation. When they make donations to a candidate they expect the candidate will vote for legislation that benefits them.

If the candidate reneges on their promise the banks will no longer fund them for reelection, will fund someone else to depose them, lock them out of corporate speaking opportunities, and deny them the ability to make a lot of money. They can also pressure other officials who they control to disenfranchise the "rogue element".

Democratic officials are just as capable of enacting policies benefiting them as Republicans. The added benefit of Democrats is that many liberals and progressives, supposedly historical enemies of corporate influence, will vote for a Democrat instead of someone unaffiliated who opposes this system.

>>1103387
Democrats have historically been the ones backed by big banking. You didn't buy the "Republicans are evil" meme did you?

Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Obama, and Hillary's top donors have and are CitiGroup, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, etc. Investment bankers love Democrats because they talk tough and then punch soft so the big banks never actually get hurt (see: Dodd-Frank). Hell, Slick Willy ended Glass-Steagel and brought the giant investment bank back to life in the first place.

Democrats love big banking, it's how they get into office

>>1103387
I assume you mean hilary. Because hilary is a neocon ala reagan , she's not going to prosecute wall street or clamp down on corruption. Under bill she helped to criminalize poverty for instance

Nice /pol/ post on /biz/ btw

>>1104149
I only recently figured out Clinton was a right-authoritarian and not a left-authoritarian. This sucks..

>>1103867
"Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies"
- Benjamin Franklin
I think.

>>1104133
Hillary was also on the board of directors when Walmart started getting rid of unions.
Anyone that thinks either side is inherently good is an idiot.