4 ms·

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,

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).
- rayiner 10y ago
  > Corporations should be banned from giving money to political parties. Corporations are banned from donating to either candidates or national party committees (DNC/RNC). What they're not banned from doing is spending money independently to promote political causes. And I can give you a good example of why that's not a bad thing: had Citizens United gone the other way, the government could have banned the tech company protests against SOPA/PIPA.
  - alasdair_ 10y ago
    Serious question: let's say they DID ban corporations from protesting against particular proposed laws. Would the outcome necessarily be worse for the people of the US overall?
    - rayiner 10y ago
      Yes. Corporations are a bulwark against oppressive government. The rise of the commercial class led to the downfall of feudalism and the rise of democracy.
- db48x 10y ago
  Corporations are just groups of citizens, all of whom have every right to donate money to anyone they want. Why would it be that groups cannot donate when the individuals making up the group can?

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).
rayiner 10y ago
> Corporations should be banned from giving money to political parties. Corporations are banned from donating to either candidates or national party committees (DNC/RNC). What they're not banned from doing is spending money independently to promote political causes. And I can give you a good example of why that's not a bad thing: had Citizens United gone the other way, the government could have banned the tech company protests against SOPA/PIPA.
- alasdair_ 10y ago
  Serious question: let's say they DID ban corporations from protesting against particular proposed laws. Would the outcome necessarily be worse for the people of the US overall?
  - rayiner 10y ago
    Yes. Corporations are a bulwark against oppressive government. The rise of the commercial class led to the downfall of feudalism and the rise of democracy.
db48x 10y ago
Corporations are just groups of citizens, all of whom have every right to donate money to anyone they want. Why would it be that groups cannot donate when the individuals making up the group can?