[Translated from Landplage February 2000]
Everything has its price in a free-market economy; only politics is not supposed to have one. Someone who is sworn in as a politician of the common weal of the nation and officially has to win the success of national capitalism is supposed to be above having his weighty decisions bought by the money of individual capitals. Nevertheless, it is permissible, and even promoted in taxation, that “business” donates certain amounts of money to the political parties. Private money may flow in thick sums to the politicians, but this should not violate the old rule that a cash payment does not affect a payback. This contradiction is dealt with by the legal distinction between legal and illegal maintenance of good relations between economics and politics: An exact clause differentiates precisely between permissible support of a party by tax-privileged donations and forbidden influencing of elected office holders by bribery. That one can tell both apart legally, is no restriction.
A bourgeois state always has a particularly intimate relationship with its economy; the competitive enterprises within range of its rule should make as much profits as possible. This constitutes the growth of the national economy and adds to the national wealth of the country; this is the basis for the power and strength of a state. Promotion of economic development, economic policy and ensuring the location are long established and recognized state goals of the first rank in modern states.
Politics makes the success of its economy the essential condition of competition. Its own agencies are to be plumbed for granting financial privileges and incentives are created for increasing the “inclination to invest”: “subsidies” to make a whole industry competitive; “structural assistance” so that worthwhile business takes place in remote corners of the nation; “investment aid” so that future enterprises also increase wealth and the economic situation improves; “tax exemptions” if an enterprise puts its profits back into a worthwhile business; “state orders” to satisfy the infrastructural and military needs. If needed, the state undertakes large-scale projects, even bringing whole branches of industry into being. And finally diplomacy frees the way for the foreign business of its capitals.
That the state essentially interferes in “the economy” and promotes it only where it can is the most understandable thing in the world. The state as guardian of the common weal is always an advocate of its economy, its representatives sits on advisory boards, and the corporate lobbyists are cordially invited to besiege the political decision-making bodies. In short: state and economics are always “sleazy”.
Of course, all sides to economic policy affect the competition of the capitalists among themselves: Political decisions set conditions for competition and the assignment of lucrative orders from the state directly decides who gets business and who doesn’t. Thus the state intervenes in the competition of the capitalists, preferring the enterprises that promise the most success and thereby at the same time disadvantaging the others; national economic policy is thus an important “factor” in the business success of the competitors in the private-economy. A continually hot question for the various enterprises is which competitive positions the state moulds in its legislation, which orders for state he assigns to whom.
Because the conditions for competition and the respective success in competition depend on the political decisions of the state, the question arises for the profit seekers how they are to recommend themselves as the best choice for a promotion or an order. Enterprises continually court favor with the state decision makers in order to obtain better competitive positions and profitable business. This is actually not at all dishonorable, but is the respectable business of professional lobbyists.
Naturally, corporations do not limit their efforts to win the favor of politicians to beautiful words, good relations and noncommittal gestures of goodwill. In their money wealth they have power in hand to effect “what is to be done” in the political sector. “He who pays the piper calls the tune” is a principle of capitalism, and therefore the money of the entrepreneurs is always available for their political friends. Political decisions get a price and prudent enterprises “cultivate the landscape” on a long-term basis and systematically toward all political parties. So some company sets up a special endowment in order to continually keep politicians in a happy mood with friendly allowances. And in reverse: resourceful party functionaries show themselves to be true experts in the procurement of large and small donations -- so their party can finance its propaganda apparatus; the business of political will formation with its expensive publicity campaigns is no different. This is also not illegal, but is exactly regulated: Donations are permitted in every amount, desired, and tax deductible.
Of course, the legal and everyday methods of influencing power are not sufficient for a quick head of the company; ultimately they want to assert themselves in the competition ahead of the others who pursue the same donation nature. Here cheerily bribery begins. He tries to buy state decisions beyond the permitted limits. This is forbidden by the national law in order to ensure a public bidding process or affirmative action strictly according to basic principles of cost effectiveness or eligibility for promotion of an industry and/or enterprise. So the state willingly sees to and promotes the patronization of the parties through tax incentives so that every amount of money they receive is immaculate, and finds it despicable if the party representatives as elected representatives align their decisions to the interests of their backers as selected statesmen; the national interest in the effective promotion of the national economy is not be foiled by bought-off individual parts.
Because “the economy” consists, however, of large individual enterprises, a placing of orders or a promotion of economic development can refer only to this. How can those eligible for promotion and those who aren’t be objectively distinguished? The question as to who is to be promoted is inevitably always a political decision. So the state interest in optimal economic promotion takes a very strange course: the question whether a decision is correct or not is made a completely abstract question, whether it meets the constitutional criteria. A legal formalism regulates what is recognized as a party donation and what is discredited as an undeclared big donation or even private intrigue. Bribery or corruption is simply determined by the law defining it as an illegal way of the influencing politics and separates it from legally influencing politics by donation.
Clearly one does not look for this difference in the contents of a decision; proving a politico-economic measure is made out of corruption is impossible. So a politician can confidently keep his donors secret and does not have the slightest fear that one might discover that it must have been this or that capitalist. Corruption always becomes known only if the suitcases full of money, air flights and other allowances are demonstrable. However, a criticism of the bought policy is not then due; instead the politician concerned gets his scandal.
For the political culture of a democratic state the definition of corruption as an offence against the law has unavoidable advantages: If state decisions are subject to the criterion of whether they were arrived at according to the constitution, then every state decision is in order if it only meets this criterion. Criticism of state decisions is permitted only in the name of its correct legal process. Thus every scandal which raves about a case of corruption has the state-useful effect of diverting the attention of the democratic subjects from the condition of their interests and instead interest them only in the formal correctness of their being ruled: This ensures by itself that scandals can be large and many; they are guaranteed never to flow into a larger accusation against the rule of the bourgeois state. The criticism remains limited to the loyalty of the politicians. With the deprivation of power of the black sheep with the black money, confidence is restored in the completely normal policy, no matter what it expects of its citizen. They could say just as well of their interest in party donations & corruption: legal, illegal, its all the same shit.