A strain of common belief says super-sized contributions to election campaigns weaken environmental safeguards. All things considered, is this so?
All things considered, no one knows. Things to consider are scattered too widely to judge as a whole.
When data are scattered widely, we naturally focus on what we see first. But we can zoom out to see more.
Begin at home. Big corporations make large donations to U.S. election campaigns. Pollution from big corporations is easily seen. Ergo, some say that worse pollution stems from hefty campaign contributions.
These puzzle pieces start the idea that the quality of the land, air and water would be better sooner if corporate money had less influence in politics.
A wider scan sees more to puzzle over.
Corporate money has much less influence in Chinese politics. Yet, pollution is plainly worse in China than the U.S.
The 2008 Summer Olympics in China’s capital city, Beijing, proved the point to the world. The government shut down plants in the region during the games to improve air quality.
At a glance, we see worse harms in fumy places where corporations and capitalism alike are held in less regard than in our country. Harm simmers in many kettles of governance.
And there is more to take in. A still wider scan brings to light more complications.