Corruption Influenced the 1960 Presidential Election. Corruption in the Days of Kennedy Was Minor-League Compared to the Fraud in Politics Today.

In the case of the 1960 presidential elections, the margin by which Kennedy defeated Nixon was incredibly slim. Quickly there were cries of corruption from those in the Nixon camp.

They immediately set to work to prove themselves correct. Many theories and beliefs have emerged from that period, but one of the most fascinating is that Nixon would have behaved better in 1972 had his loss in the 1960 presidential elections not been so questionable.

What this begs to ask is "does corruption breed corruption?" Where presidential elections are concerned, it would appear that the answer is a resounding yes!

SPECIAL INTERESTS AND CONTROL

If one wonders whether there is corruption in American presidential campaigns, one need only look to the 2000 election of George W. Bush.

Evidence of fraud was rampant, particularly in the state of Florida. Interestingly, it was here that Bush's brother was governor, the Chair of his campaign, Katherine Harris, was also Secretary of State and the entire election would be determined by the state's final count.

While this shrieks of a rigged election, the win was also determined by a vote in the United States Supreme Court, which was chock full of former President George H.W. Bush's appointees. Thus, it can be easily demonstrated that a presidential election can be easily corrupted. But, family and friends in high places are not the only way to get into the Oval Office.

A LOOK AT THE BAILOUT

History has had no time yet to determine if the government bailout will actually yield any positive net results for the "everyday" man or woman. Clearly, it has already relieved some corporate elites from the stress and strain of their poor business decisions.

Consider the auto industry bailout--in March of 2009, the deadline for GM and Chrysler to demonstrate their viability came and went. When requests for roughly $21 billion more in support were made, the government stepped in and said more changes were required before the government would offer more support.

When these changes were briefly itemized, they included changes in leadership and more sacrifices by the workers and unions. The first big change came with the firing of GM's long-time CEO. The next changes will be a campaign based "return."

Big Labor, better known as the AFL-CIO, the larger unions and all of their affiliated organizations contributed generously to the presidential campaign of President Barack Obama. It is fairly obvious that the changes and sacrifices required of the workforce will come in the shape of union friendly labor laws.

For example, the EFCA (Employee Free Choice Act) will empower unions in ways that can only be referred to as unprecedented. This is a form of special interest coercion which is derived from massive campaign contributions. In more unpleasant terms, it can be called corruption.

LET'S BE REALISTIC

We have to be totally fair and realistic if we are going to discuss seemingly corrupt elections since the 1960 presidential elections. This means we need to take a good, hard look at Enron and George W. Bush, in fact, both Bush administrations--the father's and the son's.

The family expressed deep indebtedness to a fellow named Ken Lay. This was the leader of Enron who stepped up to the plate after its controversial CEO Jeffrey Skilling walked out. This was shortly before the company collapsed, taking thousands of jobs and millions of pension dollars along with it.

So, what was the connection? It seems that Lay, and many of his corporate elite cronies, funded George W. Bush's campaign to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Within days of being sworn in, Bush signed among the first of many acts that would fundamentally deregulate energy for his old pal Lay's benefit.

As we now know, things went from bad to just plain worse. The amazing thing was just how obvious their plans and efforts really were.

It took Nixon's advocates the better part of a year to scrutinize and examine the votes they found shady. Ultimately, they didn't have the authoritative evidence in the 1960 presidential elections that was available in 2000.

That didn't make a difference. Interestingly in the 1960 presidential elections, Nixon refused to call a recount on grounds that it might cause a constitutional crisis. In 2000, the issue went to the Supreme Court to avoid such a problem.

Regardless of the results, the fact that voter reform is so deeply needed, and yet never implemented, stands to reason that "both sides of the aisle" like the ability to play with the numbers.