Our biggest agents of change who have made a difference, are not single individuals or organizations. They are instead those we least expected to have an impact – the mass public and MNC’s. The mass public – in most countries around the world – are the key deciders on whether or not an individual is placed in a position of power. The publics perception are key when it comes to statistics, elections and support for bills and new laws. Without positive opinion and perception from the public, a politicians popularity will decrease and ultimately lead to a loss of re-election – at the hands of their own politicians or from the public itself. Drastic cases of public perception of a political figure, organization, branch or government in general can be demonstrated in protests, riots, walks and outcrys – usually using social media outlets as a platform. The French Revolution is one of the best examples of the importance of having positive public opinion on the government in power.The French Revolution completely changed the social and political structure of France. It put an end to the French monarchy, feudalism, and took political power from the Catholic church. It brought new ideas to Europe including liberty and freedom for the commoner as well as the abolishment of slavery and the rights of women. It was a key moment in history where the public and the people were the key agents of change.

Article Review

The Conversation - Regulation on Australia's Political and Financial 
                   Abuse

By the standards of other rich democracies, Australia’s two major political parties are highly dependent on contributions from business. If all this money isn’t buying policy, what’s going on? On the Liberal Party side, much of it is still ideological. It gets a lot of business, whether it’s in government or not. These contributors are not trying to gain special access to the system – they believe in free markets and feel flush enough to spend a little money on the general business climate.

Some business donors are naïve. They think donations are legal bribery, but soon find out that politicians like elected office and will run away from anybody trying to make a direct connection between policy and political funding.

Savvy people know that the political finance system is not built on discrete exchanges like bribery. Reciprocal exchanges of money for future special consideration are the dominant rationale for business donations to Australian politics.

The political reciprocation is unstated, uncertain and unlikely to be simultaneous with the financial contribution. Business money says, softly and subtly but insistently, that, in exchange for small but certain financial benefits, contributing businesses expect to receive special consideration when lobbying. Regular donations, even small ones, cannot help but oblige a politician to the donor. The biggest donations are small in relation to the value of public decisions to businesses.

Sure, even through reciprocal exchange the chances of getting a decision that would not otherwise be taken are still pretty slim. Nonetheless, any real increase in the chances of winning big is worth it.

The system of reciprocal exchange is an abuse of the political system, because it insinuates private interests where only the public interest should be considered. It is corrupt because government can end up producing private goods instead of public goods. But this is not bribery. There is no quid pro quo. There is no direct connection and no price on political decisions.