Changes

Historically, federal laws limited donations by corporations to the campaigns of candidates running for federal offices.  Laws limited these corporate campaign donations to avoid corruption or the appearance of corruption. The [[United States Supreme Court]] found that campaign spending was a form of speech and was protected by the First Amendment.  The Court suggested that corporate spending to influence federal elections would not “give rise to [[corruption]] or the appearance of corruption,” the majority wrote in the landmark ''[[Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission]]'' decision. According to recent analysis by the Sunlight Foundation <ref>Allison, Bill and Harkins, Sarah, [http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/11/17/fixed-fortunes-biggest-corporate-political-interests-spend-billions-get-trillions Fixed Fortunes: Biggest corporate political interests spend billions, get trillions], Published November 17, 2014. Accessed March 20, 2015.</ref> <blockquote>"Between 2007 and 2012, 200 of America’s most politically active corporations spent a combined $5.8 billion (with a B) on federal lobbying and campaign contributions. What they gave pales compared to what those same corporations got: $4.4 trillion (with a T) in federal business and support. Putting that in context, the $4.4 trillion total represents two-thirds of the $6.5 trillion that individual taxpayers paid into the federal treasury. Said otherwise, by spending: a paltry $6 billion to bribe the US government, or just a little more than what [[General Motors|GM]] will spend on stock buybacks alone, US corporations are getting the direct benefit of two-thirds of US taxpayers' labor! And here is the visual representation of this stunning finding: for every dollar spent on influencing politics, the nation’s most politically active corporations received $760 from the government. Which translates into an Internal Rate Of Return of, hold on to your hats folks, 75,900%!"<ref>Durden, Tyler, "[http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-16/words-greatest-investment-every-dollar-spent-influencing-us-politics-corporations-ge The Best "Democracy" Money Can Buy: For Every Dollar Spent Influencing US Politics, Corporations Get $760 Back]", Zero Hedge, (March 16, 2015). Accessed March 20, 2015.</ref></blockquote>

Historically, federal laws limited donations by corporations to the campaigns of candidates running for federal offices.  Laws limited these corporate campaign donations to avoid corruption or the appearance of corruption. The [[United States Supreme Court]] found that campaign spending was a form of speech and was protected by the First Amendment.  The Court suggested that corporate spending to influence federal elections would not “give rise to [[corruption]] or the appearance of corruption,” the majority wrote in the landmark ''[[Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission]]'' decision. According to recent analysis by the Sunlight Foundation <ref>Allison, Bill and Harkins, Sarah, [http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/11/17/fixed-fortunes-biggest-corporate-political-interests-spend-billions-get-trillions Fixed Fortunes: Biggest corporate political interests spend billions, get trillions], Published November 17, 2014. Accessed March 20, 2015.</ref> <blockquote>"Between 2007 and 2012, 200 of America’s most politically active corporations spent a combined $5.8 billion (with a B) on federal lobbying and campaign contributions. What they gave pales compared to what those same corporations got: $4.4 trillion (with a T) in federal business and support. Putting that in context, the $4.4 trillion total represents two-thirds of the $6.5 trillion that individual taxpayers paid into the federal treasury. Said otherwise, by spending: a paltry $6 billion to bribe the US government, or just a little more than what [[General Motors|GM]] will spend on stock buybacks alone, US corporations are getting the direct benefit of two-thirds of US taxpayers' labor! And here is the visual representation of this stunning finding: for every dollar spent on influencing politics, the nation’s most politically active corporations received $760 from the government. Which translates into an Internal Rate Of Return of, hold on to your hats folks, 75,900%!"<ref>Durden, Tyler, "[http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-16/words-greatest-investment-every-dollar-spent-influencing-us-politics-corporations-ge The Best "Democracy" Money Can Buy: For Every Dollar Spent Influencing US Politics, Corporations Get $760 Back]", Zero Hedge, (March 16, 2015). Accessed March 20, 2015.</ref></blockquote>

===Defense Industries==

===Defense Industries===

President Eisenhower warned in his farewell address of the dangers of the "military-industrial complex".  The allocation of the defense budget to specific projects and weapon systems can become political.  Although the different branches of the military are suppose to have the Secretary of Defense and the [[Office of Management and Budget]] decide questions of priority between competing projects, some military branches either lobby for their projects directly with Congress or have retired officers of their branch join the government relations staff of defense contractors who lobby for the projects.  In addition, the subcontracts for specific projects are spread to employers located in the Congressional district of Congressmen who are members of the relevant appropriations committees.

President Eisenhower warned in his farewell address of the dangers of the "military-industrial complex".  The allocation of the defense budget to specific projects and weapon systems can become political.  Although the different branches of the military are suppose to have the Secretary of Defense and the [[Office of Management and Budget]] decide questions of priority between competing projects, some military branches either lobby for their projects directly with Congress or have retired officers of their branch join the government relations staff of defense contractors who lobby for the projects.  In addition, the subcontracts for specific projects are spread to employers located in the Congressional district of Congressmen who are members of the relevant appropriations committees.