Democracy or Corporatocracy?

A. Unabashed Pacifist:

Waiting on deck: Peace.

B. Unabashed Christian:

Holy One,

A gray and rainy day dos not dampen my spirits, for there are so many of life’s joys that take place on the inside.
Amen

C. Un-quoting Jesus:

“Mom, it’s nice that you take an interest in my travels, but I think your spoon collection has gotten out of hand.”

[I’m pretty sure I have this one right – He never said it.[

D. Blog: Extra Word of the Week – “corporatocracy”

[I thought this was a word I had created. Nope. It’s been around long enough to have this Wikipedia article that explains it.]

Corporatocracy or corpocracy is a form of government where corporations, conglomerates or government entities with private components, control the direction and governance of a country. This is sometimes considered to be a form of fascism.

Concept
This belief has two factors: campaign finance and special interests, also includes government ownership.

First, corporations provide financial support to competing political parties and major political party candidates. This allows the corporations to hedge their bets on the outcome of an election so that they are assured to have a winner who is en-debted to them. As politicians are increasingly dependent on campaign contributions to become elected, their objectiveness on issues which concern corporate interests is compromised.

Second, in many cases former corporate executives are appointed as powerful decision makers within government institutions. They are often charged with the regulation of their former or future employers. Government employees who collude with corporations often accept high ranking positions within corporations once they have demonstrated their commitment to serve the corporate interest. These lucrative offers provide incentive for government employees to serve special interests as well as provides their new employers with access to governmental decision makers. This is known as the "revolving door" between corporations and the institutions established to regulate their behavior; and can lead to regulatory capture.

Arguments
There are currently no governments designated by any governmental agency as a corporatocracy. Political progressives, however, have criticized governments for being de facto corporatocracies. Because governments tend to obscure the degree to which corporate interests are entangled in their affairs, an objective standard for declaring a government a corporatocracy is difficult. However many Western governments based on a capitalist system have been accused of being corporatocracies. Many corporations contribute abundantly to political candidates and causes. This creates a dependency of the politician on the corporation - in order to keep his power and wealth (i.e. continue receiving support for re-election bids), he might be obliged to "pay back" to the corporation using his political influence.
Some have argued that corporations exert their influence through the WTO (an international agency), although this is hotly debated. In this view, governments are in control of their countries at one level, while international corporations rule those governments at a different, level, and so there is in place a sort of "global corporatocracy". This global influence in turn has a great deal of power over the national and trans-national (e.g. the EU) governments, who rely and to an extent depend on them.

Some say the term "corporatocracy" has no real place in the lexicon, adding that corporations are primarily fictional entities possessing no real power. In fact, it is the people behind those corporations that hold the power. In that sense, a corporatocracy is nothing more than a democracy where the class which owns the means for producing wealth is fighting for its best interests. However, corporations have also been ruled to be considered a 'person' legally, so meaning they have the ability to exert power.

It is significant that the richest 1 percent globally own almost 40 percent of the world, and that most of these same people have significant ties to the richest and most influential corporations.

Buying politicians controversy
Those who dismiss the idea of a corporatocracy often say the only way it is possible is if it were legal to buy a politician's vote. In such a way, the corporation would, in fact, have a direct vote on major policy matters. However, all true democracies have made vote buying illegal. However, under the terms of at-will employment, corporations can require their employees to vote a certain way in exchange for (continued) employment. Such a policy is legal, although people intuitively know it probably shouldn't be.

However, those who believe there may be corporatocracies argue that no one individual, and perhaps no other groups of individuals, would have that much power, money or influence. Further, they argue the decisions on what to push for and who to support are made by a relatively few from inside the corporation. Therefore, while thousands of people may make up a corporation, only a few have the power to speak for the corporation and advocate issues on behalf of the corporation. That provides those corporations with a substantial amount of power, leading to a corporatocracy.

Further, they argue that it does not take an overt effort to buy a politician's vote. Making a substantial donation to a certain politician's campaign could be seen as sending a signal to that politician that the money is there if they vote in a way the corporation desires. Conversely, the money could be donated to an opponent if the vote does not go the corporation's way.

The January 2010 Supreme Court decision on Citizens United v. FEC could be construed as a gateway ruling towards a corporatocracy.

Use of the term
U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower himself argued against the strengthening corporatocracy in the form of a military-industrial complex that sets national and international financial, economic, political and military policies due to a permanent war economy.

In his 2004 book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, John Perkins writes; "corporations, banks, and governments (collectively the corporatocracy)".

The concept of a government run by corporations or instances where governments are actually weaker (politically, financially, and militarily) than corporations is a theme often used in both political fiction and science fiction. In these instances the dominant corporate entity is usually dubbed a megacorporation.