How campaign financing works in the USA - they aren't donations, they are bribes.

Foreword:  This blog post has been mostly lifted from a forum topic on the DIYchatroom forum.  I am the original author.  I am hoping that it will help people who don't live here in the USA understand the huge problem we have.  It began just after World War II.  Without a fair and universal system of campaign financing, acquiring corporate "donations" became a matter of life or death for politicians.  You simply cannot be a serious candidate at the State or National level without doing whatever it takes to keep getting these bribes.

Here are a few real life example of how campaign 'donations' corrupt the political process.

Context:  The original forum discussion was about the steady encroachment of very restrictive home plumbing repair laws in the state of Ohio.

 

These laws are pre-written by the lobbyists, and then submitted for vote by elected representative 'of the people'.  The submitting representatives without exception have received massive campaign contributions from the sponsoring groups.

  

These professional groups, universities, corporate lobbyists and other interested parties with vested financial interest in the outcome write their own laws to discourage competition, reduce the number of qualified personnel in their field and thus line their own pockets.  

They accomplish this through restrictive professional licensing, exaggerated 'safety' standards, and even pass laws on things as mundane as requiring licensed plumbers to repair toilets.  If you try to fix it yourself, you are breaking the law.

Campaign Finance in the USA is a National Disgrace

Here is my first example:

I was discussing the revised rules for plumbing and septic systems with a licensed Civil Engineer who works for one of the US States:

"I don't see what you are complaining about." he stated,  "As an engineer, I'm sure that statewide standards at the highest quality level are in the best interest of the public."

Here is my reply:

"I don't disagree that if you measure success by looking at lowered workload on engineers, fewer analytic duties, and less worry about "messing up", using these extremely expensive new standards makes perfect sense.  It didn't make sense to me.  We've lost something precious if we no longer allow people to make their own decisions within rational, healthy guidelines."

"How is it in the best interest of the public to require every property in the state to buy a $15,000 septic system from one of your 'certified' contractors?"  (Under the old system a decent, do it yourself installation was around $2000).

"If the workload to inspect and rationally design septics site by site is too much, then we need to hire more engineers. These days, I'm pretty sure you could find a few if you would choose to broaden the job requirements a bit."

"Please, if I am wrong - explain why. I'm not trying to be an ass."

I never got a reply.

What exactly am I complaining about?  Campaign bribes vs the public interest.

You see, the first step in this irrational regulatory process is they have changed the rules to now require "engineers" to be board certified based on education unobtainable to most people.  This immediately raises pay and benefits for the few "qualified" people who remain.  That happened around 1985.

No longer could a reasonably bright, dedicated young man or woman gain knowledge from research and study, which when combined with experience and years of field work would qualify him to take the certication tests and become "An Engineer."  Instead, the new laws require advanced degrees and decades of university education unavailable to ordinary people.

The second step is the cozy relationships between said engineers and the local contracting corporations and community.

The third step is the draconian and unreasonable laws that are written by lobbyists and pushed through state legislatures using legal bribes.

The fourth step is my son-in-law trying to scrape up $20,000 for what should be a $3000 job.

How do I know it works that way? 

It happened to my Uncle in the 1960s. You see, he was a pharmacist, who had passed all the state licensing and practiced his trade for 30 years. But he did not have a college degree, and in his mid 50s was unwilling to go to school for four full years.

By 1980 to be a Pharmacist required a Master's degree.

Fast forward to 2014 and you need the equivalent of a PHD (because of huge externship requirements and the time that takes) to even APPLY to take the certification tests.

The same thing happened to lawyers in the 1960s, before that if you were smart and could pass the bar they didn't give a damn what your educational background (or criminal history, for that matter, was).

If all they are seeking is an assurance of competence, an internship or apprentice program is just as thorough as any college degree.

My ex wife was a 'certificate' RN, but over the years she has been forced to attend 5 more YEARS of schooling to maintain her licensure due to this steady creep of ridiculous requirements to pursue a career in nursing.

---

Last edited by imautoparts; Today at 11:06 PM. Reason: clarity