Is it bribery or do companies donate more money to politicians that agree with their policies?
In this case, and many others, probably bribery.
On a more general note Lawence Lessig has a good amount to say about reducing corruption in American politics.
I don't remember if he covers it in that talk but somewhere I have heard him give an example where a state(?) imposed a system that judges, when running for election, (yes judges do in some states) could only accept donations under a scheme where
I believe this was eventually cancelled because judges suddenly weren't getting any campaign contributions.
If someone could give some links to those points I'd appreciate it. I'm just going by a half remembered ted talk and daily show interview.
Companies/individuals could claim that they were merely supporting the politicians because he/she already believed as they did and not that those companies/individuals were bribing the politicians into a new position, which other commenters have pointed out.
What seems like a good solution (and I believe is more or less what LL advocates) would be a combination of,
To not fix the amount a person can donate at a flat rate, is a triumph for capitalism but a deep wound for democracy. Which do you value more?
The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.