American political donations have been institutionalized. For example, the law limits the amount of donations made by natural persons and legal persons to specific individuals. That is, hard donation.

However, the law does not restrict donations to political parties. That is, similar to soft donations, individual candidates will set up a foundation to co-ordinate all funds, and there is no legal restriction.

Most importantly, American presidents and senior officials are paid only when they retire. For example, when the Secretary of State retires, the schools and enterprises he has taken care of are all hired as consultants, and what to teach. If the annual million dollars are properly calculated, how much should there be in ten years?

Do you think it is normal for Clinton to sign an Amnesty on the last day of his term? Clinton was invited by the enterprise to give a speech, and then donated $654.38 million+00,000 to the Foundation.

And the presidential library. How can a library be built without billions of dollars in this market?

Political contributions are used for political party activities in the United States. The key to the activity is the election. Of course, other inner-party activities are also included, but it doesn't cost too much money. As we all know, any organization must have money to operate. The sources of money are different, some are purely self-raised, some are affiliated with some institutions or organizations and rely on funding. Self-raised funds can be divided into three types, one is to collect membership fees, the other is to rely on business activities, and the third is to rely on funding from other institutions. Because the political parties in the United States are open organizations, they do not have the conditions to collect party fees and operate normally, and they can only rely on funds. Therefore, political contributions are essentially the financial support provided by other institutions for political party activities, which is the same as that provided by American private universities. Under the environment of strict protection of private property rights, as long as all aspects are legal, others are willing to pay and they are willing to accept, there is nothing to question. So, first of all, in law, the US government has no possibility of banning political contributions. After all, it is not illegal for political parties to vote with money.

The second question can be analyzed from the influence of various forces behind the controversial political contributions. First of all, those consortia are willing to pay, which is undoubtedly by influencing the direction of the government to make profits. There is no doubt about it. Politics is always played like this. People promoted by other countries also have complicated backgrounds, and they are nothing more than naked political contributions. But nakedness also has advantages, that is, it is conducive to supervision after publicity, and it is no longer a black-box operation. Therefore, it is meaningless to look at political contributions and criticize them with the influence of the forces behind them. At the same time, when answering other questions, I mentioned that the economy and politics of the United States have a strong nativist tendency, which means that people who come to power, whether they are presidents or lawmakers, can only become administrative measures through a complex game based on everyone's approval or willingness to compromise, otherwise they will just be slogans. Since those consortia are willing to invest, of course, it is not based on the idea that they can be earth-shattering or monopolize the overall situation, but only when they see the common denominator of interests, otherwise it is a fool to watch their money go down the drain!

Third, the basic game of American politics is competition rather than struggle. The frustrated will not be punished or destroyed, and they can come back and make a comeback. In this case, political contributions actually provide a basis for competition in the political arena. Imagine that if there is no political contribution, an open political party will be transformed into a closed organization, and it is self-evident how a closed organization plays politics.

It is true that more and more money is spent in every election. But how many? Compared with the economic output of the United States every four years, $23 billion is really nine Niu Yi cents. Besides, why not spend billions of dollars on political transparency and economic output every four years?

Firstly, explain the political contribution, that is, politics rules the world; Needless to say, everyone understands the donation.

Secondly, the United States belongs to a capitalist country and many capitalists have been born. Capital operation is one of the most important modes of operation. Capitalists use capital operation to enter politics, and political contributions are the embodiment of capital operation in politics. For example, President Trump of the United States and Lv Buwei of the Qin Dynasty were both engaged in business and politics, and they were excellent in capital operation.

To sum up, political contributions are political contributions made by businessmen in American capitalist society after they enter politics through capital operation.

Before, some Chinese people said that Americans were particularly simple, only concerned about sports and stars, not politics. Is that really the case?

One, two Carl.

I watched the movie Titanic again recently. There is a person in the movie who is particularly miserable, that is, Carl, the fiance of the heroine Ross. Carl is young, handsome and very rich, but the hostess doesn't like Carl very much and wears a green hat for him. The point is that Jack and Ross have made love to Carl many times. Angry Carl pulled out his gun and ran after Jack.

Carl is really miserable. Of course, this situation is particularly rare in real life. After all, rich people are especially popular with women. However, poor Jack in the movie is a man who goes to America from Europe to pursue the "American Dream". So movies give Jack many excellent qualities, which are especially popular with women. In fact, Americans are showing off.

Shortly after watching the movie, I opened the biography of Marx and read a few pages, which directly shocked me. It turns out that Marx's full name is karl heinrich marx. According to the custom of foreigners, "Marx" is the surname, the middle "Heinrich" is the mother's surname and Karl is the first name. Therefore, the name of the revolutionary mentor is actually Carl. Relatives, friends and classmates call him Carl.

Is this a coincidence, or did Titanic deliberately bury Marx?

No matter how coincidental, Ross's fiance will never be called Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt or Napoleon.

Recently, there was a war movie with a special "show" in its name. It seems that this is not a coincidence, but an old routine of Chinese and foreign capitalists.

Second, China people in American movies.

For a long time in the past, China people, both men and women, were very negative images in American movies. Women are prostitutes, sluts, masochists, femmes and so on. Chinese-American actresses Huang Liushuang and Nancy Kwan have played such roles in dozens of films. In Memoirs of a Geisha, Gong Li and Zhang Ziyi still play prostitutes. Apart from Fu Manchu's stupidity and evil, men's images are obscene and ugly.

It was not until the last decade or so that Hollywood films began to consider the China market and investment that the role of Chinese in American films changed slightly.

China's award-winning films abroad, such as Farewell My Concubine and Raise the Red Lantern, mostly show China's ignorance and backwardness. I can't help it. That's what "foreign adults" are like. If you want to win the prize, you must vote for it.

Third, the West and the East in the game.

In the American-made game League of Legends, the red Noxas stands for the East, and its territory is in the east of the map. The characters in Noxas look like Slavs, dress like Mongolian Tatars, and their names are basically Russian names. Like Vladimir and Katrina. Zhao Xin, with a Chinese face, moved from Knox to demasia, a metaphor for China's job-hopping in the Cold War. Even more amazing is that vines and crows look like Brezhnev.

The blue demasia represents the west. On the west side of the map, Demassians look like Americans and Britons, such as Lux and Galen.

The division of red and blue is an old routine of American games. Generally blue is more powerful than red.

Movies and games seem to have nothing to do with politics, but in fact they are hard to get rid of. This shows that Americans cannot do without politics. Even if ordinary people want to stay away from politics, it is impossible. America's "political correctness" is everywhere. Blacks, women, homosexuals, obese people and ethnic minorities all enjoy special political status. If ordinary people offend, the consequences will be very serious. However, "political correctness" did not really benefit the bottom people, but caused ethnic division and made the life of the bottom people worse. Capitalists can "divide and rule" the people, and everyone cares about the interests of small groups, so no one cares about class inequality.

You can also express your views.

Different systems

Politicians in "democratic" politics are especially good at legislating for self-enrichment.

Zhu Gaozheng, a famous politician in Taiwan Province, once said, "Politics is a clever deception", and I totally agree with him!

On the surface, American political contributions are strictly controlled. Every American citizen can donate no more than $2,700 (20 18) to each election that each candidate participates in each year, and this number is increasing year by year. In theory, this amount is very small, which can prevent politicians from being bought off.

In fact, American politicians make a fool of themselves. They set up foundations, and the amount donated by any institution or anyone to the foundations is unlimited.

Generally speaking, American politicians do better. They speak for their own foundation and ask the people or institutions they speak for to pay huge sums of money to show their support. For example, Clinton's quotations are speeches, but there is nothing in them. They are all gags. The price is $6,543,800+0,000, which is much higher than Degang Guo's crosstalk. This is a legal loophole designed by American politicians.

Campaigns cost a lot of money. Most politicians have the support of interest groups, but Trump doesn't. He spent $654.38+0 billion on his own campaign, so much money must have been earned in several times. For example, Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of new york, volunteered to earn 1 USD every year, but he is already very rich. After he became mayor, his wealth increased by 654.38+00 times! Is the problem serious?

Ironically, many people, including foreigners who know nothing about America, still insist that American democracy is almost perfect.