>>>In my opinion the U.S. has not been a democracy for a long time. At best it is a $-ocracy - he who has the money makes the rules.
>>
>>Can you provide an example country where this axiom is not true?
>
>Most long-time capitalist western countries (I.e. Can't say for Russia and its ilk).
>
>Yes, the monied do have more influence virtually everywhere, but the U.S. is unique:
>1. Years after the "Emancipation Proclamation" some brigh lawyer gt your Supreme Cort to sanction that corporations are equivalent to people.
>2. The "Freedom of Speech" provision was used s basis for protecting lobbyists and the spreading of their $$$ to politicians.
>3. The only "moral value" applicable to corporate management, carved in law, is to protect/grow shareholder value. This is a license to try/do anything. Sure, ilegal acts cannot be exercised, but criminal sanctions rarely apply.

I think we've done the corporation discussion to death so I'll pass this time. My point was that "he who has the gold makes the rules" is true everywhere.

I'll say this for Russia, they have one of the wealthiest men on the planet in control right now. Putin's net worth is rumored to be upwards of $40 billion.

>Most other countries have stringent rules regarding lobbying. Most other countries have low and strict limits on political contributions and do not allow contrived 'organizations' to get around the. Most other countries have very short election periods (and no lengthy 'primary season') to allow yet more means to buy inflence.

We disagree here as well. I believe that money is the equivalent of free speech in the modern world. Without money one's message cannot be broadcast to the masses. I completely disagree with the McCain-Feingold act because the premise is that money is a corrupting influence. I disagree, people are either corrupt or not, money makes no difference. Capping contributions, as was done in McCain-Fiengold has resulted in the candidates having to get even more money and make more promises to more people. It's has resulted in the opposite of its intended purpose. Not to mention the free speech quelching of campaign ads 60 days out.

I actually like the long campaign season. I like to see not only what the candidates say they support, but can they defend their positions over time. I like the numerous debates and hope we get at least 6 between the major party candidates. The Lincoln-Douglass model would be great. I'm looking forward to watching McCain vary between falling asleep and getting mad as Obama chants "change, change, change for change sake."

>Just because you have calm voting and calm transitions of power does not mean that you have a functioning democracy.

Personally I want the most powerful office-holder on the planet to know how to campaign over the long haul. I think its a fine test for the people to understand just who their voting for.

>cheers