Is it possible your example of Google actually proves the point? Maybe Google didn't pay the right people in government to get the bridge approved? I don't know anything about this bridge proposal, but I would think that the 'money in politics' issue is less of an issue in regional/city politics than it is in state and federal.
Local representatives look their constituents in the eye on a regular basis. State and federal members don't have the same reminder of who they work for.
> Is it possible your example of Google actually proves the point?
One of the classic signs of a conspiracy theory is that it is not falsifiable: evidence to the contrary is actually evidence of the the theory!
> I would think that the 'money in politics' issue is less of an issue in regional/city politics than it is in state and federal.
Not at all, it's just that it's less money. How do you think the area where Google is got transformed from a rural-ish area full of farms and orchards into what it is today?
> "One of the classic signs of a conspiracy theory is that it is not falsifiable"
The assertions raised absolutely are falsifiable.
You just need to bring the proper data to do so.
The original assertion is that Google's failed bridge proposal is an example that money doesn't buy power.
But that begs the question of whether Google actually tried to buy the result they were looking for. If they didn't expend their money on this issue, it's not at all a counter-example against "money buys power". [1]
Further, one would have to reasonably show that even if Google did expend their money, that they outspent any would-be counter-parties.
So you can definitely falsify the assertion.
You just need the proper data.
[1] Given the peripheral benefits of the proposal, it could quite likely be a reinforcing example. If one can't get even a good project through a political body without paying the right gatekeepers, it only reinforces the original charge.
Yeah, people with a lot less money than Google have railroaded things through the zoning board before. I suspect Google just didn't care that much, it's not like Larry Page was personally making this happen.
Money buys power over time. It's not like you cut a check, "Ok, here's your corrupt deal sir". Think of the law as limestone and money as water -- it'll get where it wants to go, eventually, however circuitously it has to.
> It's not like you cut a check, "Ok, here's your corrupt deal sir".
Well, actually, in truly corrupt places, that is exactly what you do. Perhaps in ways that are less traceable than a check, but yes, you pay people personally to do things in a fairly direct way. That or you intimidate them, like this boy who was held hostage for years, and then disolved in nitric acid in order to get his father to recant his testimony:
That kind of thing happens in the US and elsewhere too, for sure. And I'm not saying money does not buy influence, but it's a different kind of thing. It'd be very difficult to completely level the playing field for those with and without money.
> One of the classic signs of a conspiracy theory is that it is not falsifiable: evidence to the contrary is actually evidence of the the theory!
"Evidence" that could be evidence in either direction isn't useful evidence. :) The theory that they probably failed to pay some party (whether financially or some other form of power-kickback) was my first thought on reading the initial story. It seems to be as valid of a theory as any other without clear evidence pointing either way.
Is that what happened? I honestly have no idea, thus I have no idea whether this incident points towards more or less corruption.
Local representatives look their constituents in the eye on a regular basis. State and federal members don't have the same reminder of who they work for.