I'd think a good place to start is to look at which party has funded science institutions historically. For instance, under George W. Bush, the budgets for the following went up significantly: National Institute of Health - tripled in fact; National Science Foundation; NASA (after it was reduced under Clinton). You may find this counterintuitive, but it’s true and on the record. Funding for science organizations has historically been higher under Republicans than Democrats. Neil Tyson (host of NOVA) explains this quite well. http://youtu.be/x7Q8UvJ1wvk

I'll bet most anyone can tell you who is winning the Republican horserace for NH based on polls, but I'd wager much more that almost no one could tell you anything about Mitt Romney's 59-point economic plan. This is not simply because Americans are dumb and lazy, it is a direct result of the garbage that is known as American media. Whether it is a sympathetic media outlet for Republicans like Fox News, a virulently opposed one like the NY Times, a neutral one like CNN, or a totally disinterested one like BBC America the media that serves the American people has made a collective decision that issues do not matter nearly so much as poll results. Horserace coverage makes for better ratings than in-depth analysis I guess.

Well, this stands to reason as both American political parties are descendents of European Liberalism as created by David Hume, John Stuart Mill and Adam Smith. Why should they represent ideals of Marxism that have no place in American history and represent no strain of the American experience?

I fail to see why the food needs of impoverished nations is more significant an issue for wealthy nations than the establishment of a permanent colony on another celestial body. The long-term viability of our species is far better served by expanding than trying to feed every child in the Sudan.

Why are you comparing a power plant to differing means of transportation? I would think it would be much better to compare nuke plants to coal plants, oil platforms, natural gas plants etc...

Do post hoc government reports ever not condemn agencies/corprations etc?

..it is (relatively speaking) incredibly easy to trasfer highly sensitve items to recipients that should never have them. Where there's a will (in this case profit motive) there's always a way.

No one has been identified as trading money for votes, and lobbying is clearly not such. Stop being deceitful and obtuse.

That is certainly an option (not one I would choose, but a resonable option nonetheless), but then you have eliminate all campaign contributions from all groups/people/PACs/etc... If you're going to go fascist and depreive one group of their freedom of speech, then you have to deprive them all.

I would refer you to Dartmouth College v. Woodward 1819. The U.S. was built on corporations having rights. It's one of several factors that made us the most powerful nation in history.

This assumes, incorrectly, that all lobbyists are of the same opinion and work on the same side of the isle. Other than unions (which donate over 95% of their funds to the DNC), political lobbies have a fairly even distribution of funds across political isles. In the case of this issue, you have huge corporations with vast sums of money working on both sides of the issue. There is no corruption inherent in this process as you seem to imply.

No, corruption is when you can determine that definite “pay to play” or vote buying has happened. That is nothing at all like lobbying. The entertainment industry has every right to convince people of their opinion and support those candidates that support their causes. What you’re advocating for seems to be some archaic form of government where no expert opinions can be brought to bear on politicians. Are you actually espousing that congressional representatives already have some innate expertise on every issue that would preclude their being informed by expert lobbyists? By that logic, I can simply go outside of my house and feel what the weather is like to get a bearing for my opinion of climate change. Why should I, or any representative, fall into the trap of listening to highly trained climate scientists who use government funds and promote a message that requires more and more government funds be funneled their way? Lobbying is an efficient and effective way of bringing expertise and nuance into the government’s sphere that otherwise wouldn’t be there.

Lobbying is not now, nor has it ever been, corruption. It is simply a form of communication.. i.e. speech. We have an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that protects that sort of thing.