Citation needed. Also, is there any reason to believe this isn't how it's always been throughout history? Those with lots of capital set things into motion that impact everyone else?
Corruption at the scale we're currently seeing was pretty much illegal until the Citizen's United ruling. Dark Money groups spent $600 million on senate races in 2016.
The Koch brothers alone were planning on spending nearly $1 billion to influence the election. It's no wonder that congress is racing to pass an historically unpopular tax bill that almost exclusively benefits these very same donors. Hell, Lindsey Graham gave away the game in a response a few weeks ago when asked what would happen if they didn't pass the bill:
> "The party fractures, most incumbents in 2018 will get a severe primary challenge, a lot of them will probably lose, the base will fracture, the financial contributions will stop, other than that it'll be fine!"
How what is described in the article - political group promoting their opinion - is "corruption"? Yes, some rich people may have financed that particular group - as rich people finance a lot of politically active groups - but what's corrupt in that? Did they bribe anyone? Did they break any laws?
Legal corruption is still corruption. But to fix it you have to change the system, not just enforce existing rules. And in order to change the system, you have to have a better system ready and widespread support for it. That's hard.
OK, let me rephrase. How it is "legal corruption"? What's corrupt there in people trying to convince other people in their point of view? Is the "corrupt" part that the people doing the convincing happen to be rich and thus must be evil? What exactly needs fixing here? Should Kochs be banned from political advocacy? Should TPA be prohibited? Should opposition to municipal projects be banned? What exactly here needs fixing?
Ever heard of United Fruit? Read more history and you'll find plenty of examples of the government taking action on behalf of one or a handful of corporations or individuals.
United Fruit (now called Chiquita) was able to exert influence on the Eisenhower administration because the Dulles brothers (Secretary of State and Director of the CIA) had a long work history and direct financial interest in the company, which was outraged that the Guatemalan government planned to force the company to sell its unused land back to the country at the company-assessed price (the company owned >40% of the arable land in the country, which it had claimed was nearly worthless to save on taxes).
The US imposed a military coup on Guatemala which overthrew a democratically elected government and installed a right-wing military junta in its place, after which the military ruled via a succession of corrupt dictators and military puppets, and undertook a horrific genocidal decades-long civil war against armed rebels and rural peasant civilians.
But I don’t think that’s quite the same situation as the Koch Brothers today. For one thing, all the consequences were borne by poor foreigners.
> all the consequences were borne by poor foreigners
What about all the American fruit farmers that compete with bananas? There's always side-effects. Now Americans eat more bananas than apples and oranges combined.
Probably not -- The version that emerged from the conference committee included a provision that wasn't in either the House or Senate bill -- but coincidentally would result in a tax cut of over a million dollars per year to the Senator that was previously holding out. He then announced that he would now support the bill.
