That's the crux of the problem though. People who form corporations are granted free speech abilities that are beyond the means of everyone else. Those that own a corporation have no legal limit on the amount of cash they can lend to a political cause while those who do not have their allowed contribution amount capped.

Corporations such as -- to pick an example completely at random -- the New York Times?

One of the many, many problems with advocating limiting corporate speech is that virtually everything larger than complaining on a blog or tacking a sign to an electrical pole is done by a corporate organization. If the New York Times can say what it pleases using its vast financial resources and nationwide distribution networks, it's very hard to argue coherently that, say, General Electric can't.

What are you suggesting here? Increased direct democracy? Less lobbying, presumably thru regulation, thereby curtailing speech?

He was also chairman of BAE systems, The Chertoff Group, and other defense-oriented businesses. BAE is D.C.'s 8th largest contractor.

Chertoff was instrumental in mandating the FAA's adoption of body scanners for security in his capacity as a public official.

As a private citizen, The Chertoff Group represents lobbying efforts for security product companies and manufacturers.

Airports may or may not need body scanners. I think that the general HN audience is more familiar with Schneier's work enough to know of the 'security theater' that they represent, but even allowing for the possibility that they actually do some good, it seems absolutely absurd to me that the director of the NSA or the Secretary of Homeland Security has the power to mandate their purchase and installation with one hand, while selling them to the government with the other.

Assuredly this is neither the most or least egregious example of federal corruption, but I think it's the most illustrative. To me, the federal government has only the powers enumerated in the constitution. Mandating security devices isn't one of those powers, but the federal government has claimed it in its purview.

I don't necessarily have a problem with the federal government trying to keep us safe, if that's what they're doing, and I certainly don't mean to besmirch Chertoff as the archetype of corruption -- he may very well have the best possible intent... but at the same time, it would be silly of me, as president, to insist that only the software company I owned could possibly manufacture secure-enough solutions for the government and mandate their usage as vendor.

This isn't to suggest that all regulations are bad, mind you, but cui bono; wherever there exists a regulation, someone benefits from it. Sometimes it is legitimately the people who are customers / consumers of that business, but often it exists as the result of a mandated competitive advantage... and anecdotally speaking, the more expensive compliance is, the more likely that is to be the case.

Your solution to regulatory capture is to abolish government appropriations? Consumers, erm citizens, would then get essential services from corporations directly, mooting the need for governments?

I think I've seen that movie.

PS- Sorry about your Chertoff. Talking about it is an important part of the recovery process.