When we talk about foreign policy, do we think that foreign campaign contributions distorted it? It is a theory, but not many of us it first off. The arms industry is dominated by a few- mega corporations such as; Lockheed Martin, McDonnell Douglas and Boeing. These large corporations are one of the most powerful of U.S. special interest groups. Some say that, "using their formidable financial and political clout, the industry has grown expert in slanting U.S. policy decisions for it's own financial gain"(Washburn).
These industries have been pouring large amounts of their money into political "coffers", more than they ever have before. "In 1995-96 Election cycle, the top 25 U.S. weapons exporting firms doled out a record 10.8 million in political action committee and soft money contributions" (Washburn). Some key players in this industry believe that "weapons' manufacturing has worked to elect a Republican congress that is helping them to do just that" (Washburn).
The author of this article believes that when key players, such as Boeing throw money at certain political areas, such as policy decisions, people listen when money is a factor in certain areas. Decisions can be affected.
"Today nearly 6,400 Pentagon, State, and Commerce department employees are assigned full time to help arms makers promote, broker, negotiate and close foreign sales. The government spends an estimated 7 billion a year to support weapons merchants" (Washburn). In regards to Congress, in 1995 the arms industry won two major victories, a 15 billion dollar arms export loan program, and a 200 million dollar annual tax break (Washburn). In both cases industries benefited and the government had key roles in their success. Regarding the 15 billion loan fund, industries acted w/o administration support, but efforts were directed at Congress. The government is depended on by their people to...