5 ms·

The only thing that you have to determine is which political campaigns are these two companies donating the most to. Then you'll know why this isn't being chan

by TenOhms 10y ago

The only thing that you have to determine is which political campaigns are these two companies donating the most to. Then you'll know why this isn't being changed.

rch 10y ago
> By voting against the caps, [Ajit Pai and Michael O’Rielly] voted against 2.7 million children who are just trying to stay in touch with their incarcerated parents. Both Republicans on the panel. I included the 'think of the children' bit to illustrate how easy it is to turn a persuasive argument into a blatantly manipulative one.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  Hillary has taken $133,246[0] from prison lobbyists. Her husband admitted guilt for the state of the current prison system[1] and famously Hillary publicly supported[2] those very same policies with rather fear mongering speeches. I'd argue the corruption is rather bipartisan. [0]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-will-ban-private-prisons_b_9297568.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-wil... [1]http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/06/politics/bill-clinton-crime-prisons-hillary-clinton/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/06/politics/bill-clinton-crime-pr... [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALXulk0T8cg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALXulk0T8cg
  - krastanov 10y ago
    Donation does not immediately imply corruption (on either side of the political spectrum). Especially one as small as this one. It does bring moral questions, and it is worthwhile to think about limiting the power of "donations" in politics, but people can hold an opinion that we dislike even before receiving a donation. The question is whether they will change their opinion when confronted with data.
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      Can you give me an example where Hillary Clinton has recused herself from a political process due to a conflict of interest with one of her donors? If not, isn't that worrying? Shouldn't the appearance of impropriety be enough?
      - kefka 10y ago
        Show me an example of federal cases in which a legislator has recused themselves like the way you expect Clinton to do. Or, why do you hold her to a higher standard than others? (Yes I think they're all corrupt.)
        cmdrfred 10y ago
        I don't have any examples as there is a cult of corruption in Washington. I can report that Bernie Sanders simply refused to take the money of prison corporations, and in my state senate it happens all the time[0]. Am I unreasonable to not vote or advocate for anyone who is apparently corrupted by corporate money? [0]http://articles.philly.com/2016-06-27/news/74031420_1_house-bill-judiciary-committee-victims http://articles.philly.com/2016-06-27/news/74031420_1_house-...
    - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
      What does corporate donation to political parties imply? No, fuck that. Corporations should be banned from giving money to political parties. Our politicians are supposed to represent our interests as citizens, not our interests as corporations and their employees. I'm open to changing my mind on this matter if anyone can provide many strong examples of where corporate donation to political parties has lead to demonstrably better outcomes for people at citizens.
      - cloverich 10y ago
        I think the central argument is: corporations must make money to donate, and generally make money by providing a service that people want or need. In that way, corporate interests may be tied to a population's interests. Obviously this could be flawed (to the point of exclusion) in many ways, and I'd enjoy discussion around it. > many strong examples of where corporate donation to political parties has lead to demonstrably better outcomes for people at citizens. I'd bet you could find many strong examples in both directions. I think we'd need either evidence that its systematically one way or the other, or strong logical arguments as to why it would be inevitable (i.e. evidence lacking).
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - faet 10y ago
    >Bernie’s goal is to ban private prisons. Hillary has a similar goal, but takes money from prison lobbyists. Does this make sense to you? Well, considering that private prisons are banned in the state of NY but not VT. Yes. Also, the 'private prison donations' is very loosely connected. They were bundlers, who worked for a lobbying firm, a firm that got 0.35% of it's money from private prisons. But, that doesn't matter, as they money they raised came from people outside of the lobbying firm and outside of the private prison industry. As that is what bundlers do. If he called me up, and I sent in a check, how is that "private prison money"? It's not, it'd be tied to my industry/job instead. source: https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=D000032306&year=2015 https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=D000032306&... The only actual money she got from an actual PP lobbyist, was given to a charity, and it totaled something like $8,600. This is similar to how she was connected to the 'oil and gas' lobbyists. People would say Ben Klein, a bundler, represented "oxbow" an oil company, therefor hillary gets money from oil. What they don't tell you is his firm only did 60k worth of business with oxbow (<0.8% of their revenue). But their #2 business was Brookfield Power, aka Brookfield Renewable Energy Parters. Who do Hydro. Yet, Mr Klein, is an "oil lobbyist". Source: https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=D000034396&year=2015 https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=D000034396&...
  - tzs 10y ago
    That 1994 crime bill your second and third links are talking about was widely supported by black leaders at the time. In fact, the bill was going to fail after an unexpected loss in a procedural vote, until the Congressional Black Caucus put their weight behind getting it passed. At the time, black communities were being decimated by crack cocaine and by the violence associated with its trafficking, and getting tough on crime was seen as a way to save black lives. (This is also why the majority of the Black Congressional Caucus had voted a few years earlier for making the sentences for crack cocaine much longer than those for powder cocaine). Did the crime bill work out as hoped? Perhaps not. But its passage had nothing to do with corruption.

by TenOhms 10y ago

The only thing that you have to determine is which political campaigns are these two companies donating the most to. Then you'll know why this isn't being changed.

rch 10y ago

> By voting against the caps, [Ajit Pai and Michael O’Rielly] voted against 2.7 million children who are just trying to stay in touch with their incarcerated parents. Both Republicans on the panel. I included the 'think of the children' bit to illustrate how easy it is to turn a persuasive argument into a blatantly manipulative one.

cmdrfred 10y ago
Hillary has taken $133,246[0] from prison lobbyists. Her husband admitted guilt for the state of the current prison system[1] and famously Hillary publicly supported[2] those very same policies with rather fear mongering speeches. I'd argue the corruption is rather bipartisan. [0]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-will-ban-private-prisons_b_9297568.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-wil... [1]http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/06/politics/bill-clinton-crime-prisons-hillary-clinton/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/06/politics/bill-clinton-crime-pr... [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALXulk0T8cg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALXulk0T8cg
- krastanov 10y ago
  Donation does not immediately imply corruption (on either side of the political spectrum). Especially one as small as this one. It does bring moral questions, and it is worthwhile to think about limiting the power of "donations" in politics, but people can hold an opinion that we dislike even before receiving a donation. The question is whether they will change their opinion when confronted with data.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    Can you give me an example where Hillary Clinton has recused herself from a political process due to a conflict of interest with one of her donors? If not, isn't that worrying? Shouldn't the appearance of impropriety be enough?
    - kefka 10y ago
      Show me an example of federal cases in which a legislator has recused themselves like the way you expect Clinton to do. Or, why do you hold her to a higher standard than others? (Yes I think they're all corrupt.)
      - cmdrfred 10y ago
        I don't have any examples as there is a cult of corruption in Washington. I can report that Bernie Sanders simply refused to take the money of prison corporations, and in my state senate it happens all the time[0]. Am I unreasonable to not vote or advocate for anyone who is apparently corrupted by corporate money? [0]http://articles.philly.com/2016-06-27/news/74031420_1_house-bill-judiciary-committee-victims http://articles.philly.com/2016-06-27/news/74031420_1_house-...
  - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
    What does corporate donation to political parties imply? No, fuck that. Corporations should be banned from giving money to political parties. Our politicians are supposed to represent our interests as citizens, not our interests as corporations and their employees. I'm open to changing my mind on this matter if anyone can provide many strong examples of where corporate donation to political parties has lead to demonstrably better outcomes for people at citizens.
    - cloverich 10y ago
      I think the central argument is: corporations must make money to donate, and generally make money by providing a service that people want or need. In that way, corporate interests may be tied to a population's interests. Obviously this could be flawed (to the point of exclusion) in many ways, and I'd enjoy discussion around it. > many strong examples of where corporate donation to political parties has lead to demonstrably better outcomes for people at citizens. I'd bet you could find many strong examples in both directions. I think we'd need either evidence that its systematically one way or the other, or strong logical arguments as to why it would be inevitable (i.e. evidence lacking).
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- faet 10y ago
  >Bernie’s goal is to ban private prisons. Hillary has a similar goal, but takes money from prison lobbyists. Does this make sense to you? Well, considering that private prisons are banned in the state of NY but not VT. Yes. Also, the 'private prison donations' is very loosely connected. They were bundlers, who worked for a lobbying firm, a firm that got 0.35% of it's money from private prisons. But, that doesn't matter, as they money they raised came from people outside of the lobbying firm and outside of the private prison industry. As that is what bundlers do. If he called me up, and I sent in a check, how is that "private prison money"? It's not, it'd be tied to my industry/job instead. source: https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=D000032306&year=2015 https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=D000032306&... The only actual money she got from an actual PP lobbyist, was given to a charity, and it totaled something like $8,600. This is similar to how she was connected to the 'oil and gas' lobbyists. People would say Ben Klein, a bundler, represented "oxbow" an oil company, therefor hillary gets money from oil. What they don't tell you is his firm only did 60k worth of business with oxbow (<0.8% of their revenue). But their #2 business was Brookfield Power, aka Brookfield Renewable Energy Parters. Who do Hydro. Yet, Mr Klein, is an "oil lobbyist". Source: https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=D000034396&year=2015 https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=D000034396&...
- tzs 10y ago
  That 1994 crime bill your second and third links are talking about was widely supported by black leaders at the time. In fact, the bill was going to fail after an unexpected loss in a procedural vote, until the Congressional Black Caucus put their weight behind getting it passed. At the time, black communities were being decimated by crack cocaine and by the violence associated with its trafficking, and getting tough on crime was seen as a way to save black lives. (This is also why the majority of the Black Congressional Caucus had voted a few years earlier for making the sentences for crack cocaine much longer than those for powder cocaine). Did the crime bill work out as hoped? Perhaps not. But its passage had nothing to do with corruption.