"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect". Mark Twain 1904

read more

Are political donations attempts to curry favour or merely to avoid persecution?

// July 22nd, 2010 // Uncategorized

Image via Wikipedia

The commonly held belief is that donations by corporation or any sort of company (sole trader or partnership) are all about currying favour with the powers that be so that they can get the inside track on some decision that might affect them specifically or their business generally or help them in the awarding of some contract paid for by the public purse. In other words it is about getting one up on your competitors.

Yet what if the main reason is more of a preventative nature than that of a cure. What if companies give money to parties either in or likely to be in government in order to avoid being singled out for exclusion or persecution by the powers that be? What it is less about a culture of avarice and more a culture of fear. Might it be more about damage avoidance than it is about actual gain? Have we not had governments in the past populated by people that might be vindictive enough to target some companies or individuals for not donating to them or their party, of failing to tow the line? And that the lesson learned was one taking preventable action to ensure that they did not fall foul of the whims of minister X.

So it is just possible that such donations are less about securing a leg up and more about not being left behind if everyone else is doing it.

4 Responses to “Are political donations attempts to curry favour or merely to avoid persecution?”

1. steve white says:

   July 31, 2010 at 11:35 pm

   maybe maybe, i got impression some politicians took money to throw their weight around, to show how powerful they are and there worth 50,000 more then the next guy rather then simply to get the money, to show what their time and vote is worth.

   but but this ends up at the everyone else is doing it so i have to too excuse, which is no defense
2. dsullivan says:

   August 2, 2010 at 7:47 pm

   I don’t think of the above as being an excuse rather an alternative explanation. After all, you can offer an explanation of how someone killed someone without excusing it.
3. Wan says:

   August 2, 2010 at 10:26 pm

   Wheather you view using money to buy influence or to avoid persecution wouldn’t change the solution. Banning it would mean that you couldn’t buy influence and it would mean firms could not be singled out for not donating because no one is donating.
4. dsullivan says:

   August 3, 2010 at 10:52 am

   Banning donations from corporate entities is certainly simple but doesn’t it then place even more power in the hands of historically wealthy individuals? Either Tony O’Reilly or Denis O’Brien, for example, could still give of his personal wealth to whomever he choice. That doesn’t change.