Some would debate whether this is an idea or a thing. A thing should exist, although fictional people have been noded as people on everything2. Some would say this is only an idea. Yet certain facts and phenomena don't seem to be debated, only how important they are and whether they should be grouped together under a label.

The fact that companies which profit from defense spending tend to contribute more to the campaigns of politicians who vote to spend more on defense is almost too obvious to be worth mentioning. Of course other organizations contribute more to congressmen who oppose certain items of defense spending, but on the whole the spending of the industry dwarfs the budget of it's opponents. Of course this money can only be used for reelection purposes - it doesn't benefit the candidate directly, unless they hire their spouses and children or get some other kind of indirect benefit. Legislators who vote for larger defense budgets are also often offered highly paid jobs by large defense companies after they are voted out of office.

Still there is debate as to whether there is really a military industrial complex. Even those who are not worried these companies have influenced our foreign policy sometimes wonder if the alleged military industrial complex has contributed to cost overruns and wasted money. I have never heard any of the facts in the previous paragraph debated. I can't even recall hearing anyone argue directly that they are not relevant, I have only heard it implied indirectly by not discussing them and ignoring those who do so.