• crusa187@lemmy.ml
    ·
    8 months ago

    This is interesting to consider, but I think it misses the mark a bit and term limits may be more a threat to corporate hegemony than you’d think.

    As it stands in the US, politics in DC revolves around legalized bribery in the form of “campaign finance donations.” The longer you continue to give corporate handouts and tax cuts, the more bribe money you get for your campaign for your next term. People like Pelosi, Schumer, Biden, Graham, and McConnell have mastered this game resulting in their lengthy careers in fundraising. The return on investment for this is astounding btw - it’s often 10s of thousands in bribe money to capture a politician, equating to millions or billions in reduced taxation. Anyway, I think with term limits there’s just much less opportunity for these entrenched CEOs to attain a grip of power over lawmakers, and hope that this would result in more motivation for representatives to “do the right thing” and pass laws which benefit their constituents instead of the top 1%.

    • bobs_guns@lemmygrad.ml
      ·
      8 months ago

      Much less opportunity is not quite right. Most people who get elected have their price. What you need to do instead is make the bribery illegal. Of course, it is not straightforward to do this when the people making the laws have been bought or promised cushy, high-paying jobs when their term limit is up. As it is shockingly cost-effective, the companies will keep doing it. Long story short, the defense you need is, therefore, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and that defense can only be achieved by a revolution.