Everyday, corporations and special interests pump $2 million into Washington D.C., giving truckloads of campaign contributions and donations to political parties.

And when politicians are elected, they remember the generosity and enact legislation that will benefit their donors. Welcome to the land where elected officials bend over and let corporations pull their hair and slap their ass. Welcome to the D.C Church of Cheddar Stacks, what us citizens know as “American democracy.”

Politicians need to raise a vast fortune to wage a campaign and win an election. The US Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) studied the 2004 congressional primary elections and found that the average senator spent $4.8 million to win a Senate campaign. Ninety-one percent of those who raised the most money won. Winning candidates raised four times as much money as losing candidates, and so it has been for the last four election cycles. Shucks, even ding dang dong ole’ Bush outspent that girly-man Vietnam-veteran Kerry, $367 million to a piddly $326 mil.

The system requires most politicians to spend an average of one third of their time fundraising instead of doing their jobs. And often they get the money from big business.

Meanwhile, the Governator bemoans the overwhelming influence of labor unions on politics, claiming that their donations give them too much access and clout. But according to the Center for Responsive Politics, corporations are outspending unions 24 to one. If labor unions supposedly have too much pull because of their donations, what kind of influence do large corporate donors have? For a few nuggets of infuriating madness, let’s start simple.

The oil industry: In 2004 alone, oil companies gave $25.6 million in political contributions, 80 percent of which went to Republicans. The 2004 elections left us with a Republican controlled Congress. And in 2005, Congress enacted a massive energy bill granting the oil industry $2.8 billion in tax breaks, raising oil industry tax breaks and subsidies to a total of $14 billion. And even though oil company execs are filling their backyard pools with cash (Exxon Mobil made $9.92 billion in the third quarter of 2005 alone), they deserve it. You see? Simple. Now let’s get some gas.

In 2002, the Senate considered raising the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, which would have forced car companies to manufacture cars that operate at a standard of 36 miles per gallon by the year 2015. It was voted down, 62 to 38. Car companies gave the 62 senators an average of $18,800 each. They even gave the 38 nays a little something, but apparently the average of $5,590 wasn’t enough to own them. Awesome! Now let’s take drugs!

Between 1989 and 2002, drug companies gave $116.3 million in political donations. Their money bought influence, and they were able to pressure the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) into approving drugs for public consumption at double the speed. Pills were rushed to market, and the shoddily inspected medicines led to thousands of deaths, according to the election reform organization Public Campaign.

The speed-job approval process proved most deadly in May 1999, when the FDA approved the arthritis-pain reliever Vioxx. Between 88,000 and 139,000 people had a heart attack or stroke after taking it, and between 26,400 and 55,600 died. But something like this could never happen again, right? Of course not. Especially because the pharmaceutical industry has only given $50 million in campaign contributions in the last four years and currently only spends around $150 million a year on lobbying. Mere pennies.

So money in politics can kill you. And these examples are just a small selection of corporate-political connections. But don’t be depressed buckaroo! Another way offers salvation. According to a study done by Public Campaign, if each taxpayer coughed up $7-10 a year, we could have full public financing for all congressional elections. Another $5 per taxpayer per year, and presidential campaigns would be funded by us as well. We would run the block because politicians would need our money to run! Think of the power!

“Public funding produces a different type of candidate, people who actually represent a large segment of society. You actually see more women and minorities running,” says Craig Holman, executive director White House for Sale. “People who are well known to the community. You can see that significant qualitative difference in the candidates who run in Arizona and Maine (two of the seven states which already have public financing systems for their gubernatorial and legislative elections).”

San Francisco just recently became the second city to establish public financing for mayoral campaigns. Rob Arnow spearheaded the push for public financing.

“It levels the playing field,” says Arnow. “It allows qualified candidates to wage respective campaigns irrespective of how much money they can raise.”

Currently, the fight for public funding is mostly taking place at the state level. The California assembly recently passed a public financing bill. A bill was introduced in the Maryland House of Delegates and other bills are floating around in West Virginia, Montana, and New Mexico. But the enemy is crafty.

“There are two types of opponents,” says Nick Nyhart, executive director of Public Campaign. “First there are the incumbent leaders who use the pay-to-play political game, who work the private funding system to gain power. And then there are the interests behind them, the big money donors who have the money to give.”

Contact Omeed Rafizadeh at omeedr@sfsu.edu