4 ms·

From the article, it doesn't appear there were any new revelations in the documents at all, just an internally-produced summary of information that was already

From the article, it doesn't appear there were any new revelations in the documents at all, just an internally-produced summary of information that was already public (ie, the past political donations of various appointees). Am I missing something?

mysticlabs 10y ago
The main thing is the pay-to-play donations for appointment of government positions. For example, Julius Genachowski, donated just under $3.5 million to the DNC and OFA, and in exchange was appointed chairman of the FCC by Obama in 2009. I don't believe this was well known before these leaks. I still have yet to go through all the data, but supposedly theres a lot of data having to do with the data structure of how the DNC moved data around. This includes voter data, which was possibly used to manipulate the primaries in favor of Clinton and away from Sanders. More analysis is needed at this point, and it is likely more info will be revealed as people sift through everything.
- vannevar 10y ago
  For example, Julius Genachowski, donated just under $3.5 million to the DNC and OFA, and in exchange was appointed chairman of the FCC by Obama in 2009. Nothing in the documents proves this. It only shows what we already know, which is that in any administration, there is a correlation between donations and appointments. What you would need is a written communication prior to the donation requesting or offering the appointment in exchange. That would be evidence. This is nothing.
- jljljl 10y ago
  From his Wikipedia page: Genachowski was on the staffs of the Select Committee investigating the Iran-Contra Affair and then U.S. Representative Chuck Schumer.[10] In 1994 FCC Chairman Reed Hundt hired him as a senior legal advisor; he was chief counsel 1996-1997.[11] For Senator Barack Obama's 2008 Presidential Campaign, Genachowski was Chairperson of the Technology, Media and Telecommunications Policy Working Group, which created the Obama Technology and Innovation Plan.[15] He also advised and guided the Campaign’s innovative use of technology and the Internet for grassroots engagement and participation. After the November election, he co-led the Technology, Innovation, and Government Reform Group for President-Elect Obama's Transition Team.[16] On January 12, 2009, several news outlets reported that Genachowski would be President-Elect Obama's choice to head the FCC. This was confirmed by a press release on March 3, 2009.[17] This isn't just some rando who donated money and got an appointment for it.
internaut 10y ago
This is corruption. The selling of public office is always corruption. There is no way to argue otherwise. Of course we have heard this or things like it before, so the shock value has long since faded, but it is important to see properly and not take the new normal as the benchmark. It is clear that a new system of government must be created which solves the oldest governance problem, namely; who watches the watchmen? Wikileaks was theoretically a preliminary stab at answering the question but relies heavily on the public having a sense of responsibility and morality itself, something I don't believe can be counted on. Increasingly I have become convinced that the solution does not lie in transparency, but in obfuscation. Perhaps the deep state points to a possible solution, a public government and a private government. Who can control the controllers if nobody knows who they are, perhaps even themselves. There are a bunch of pesky problems like funding, legitimacy and shutdown protocol to prevent what I feel forced to call the Jason Bourne scenario. There's an interesting and very creative history of this sort of thing going back thousands of years. Containing corruption by using secret languages, using eunuchs, using specially trained aristocratic classes, using random selection from the population.
- vannevar 10y ago
  The sale of a public office is corruption. But nothing in the article provides any evidence of such a sale, at least nothing that wasn't already public. In every administration we see donors getting appointments. But correlation isn't causation---it's plausible that well-connected, politically active people would both be likely to donate and likely to be appointed to important positions.
  - MR4D 10y ago
    For corruption on this scale, we don't need causation. We want people to not only be above board, but we also want the appearances of being above board (so if something even looks bad, our public figures should avoid it). For this, correlation is a much better standard because it forces office holders to stay away from the smoke too. If we had them say, well sure there's smoke but no fire, we'd have Nixon's missing 18 minutes all over the place.
  - 10y ago

mysticlabs 10y ago

The main thing is the pay-to-play donations for appointment of government positions. For example, Julius Genachowski, donated just under $3.5 million to the DNC and OFA, and in exchange was appointed chairman of the FCC by Obama in 2009. I don't believe this was well known before these leaks. I still have yet to go through all the data, but supposedly theres a lot of data having to do with the data structure of how the DNC moved data around. This includes voter data, which was possibly used to manipulate the primaries in favor of Clinton and away from Sanders. More analysis is needed at this point, and it is likely more info will be revealed as people sift through everything.

vannevar 10y ago
For example, Julius Genachowski, donated just under $3.5 million to the DNC and OFA, and in exchange was appointed chairman of the FCC by Obama in 2009. Nothing in the documents proves this. It only shows what we already know, which is that in any administration, there is a correlation between donations and appointments. What you would need is a written communication prior to the donation requesting or offering the appointment in exchange. That would be evidence. This is nothing.
jljljl 10y ago
From his Wikipedia page: Genachowski was on the staffs of the Select Committee investigating the Iran-Contra Affair and then U.S. Representative Chuck Schumer.[10] In 1994 FCC Chairman Reed Hundt hired him as a senior legal advisor; he was chief counsel 1996-1997.[11] For Senator Barack Obama's 2008 Presidential Campaign, Genachowski was Chairperson of the Technology, Media and Telecommunications Policy Working Group, which created the Obama Technology and Innovation Plan.[15] He also advised and guided the Campaign’s innovative use of technology and the Internet for grassroots engagement and participation. After the November election, he co-led the Technology, Innovation, and Government Reform Group for President-Elect Obama's Transition Team.[16] On January 12, 2009, several news outlets reported that Genachowski would be President-Elect Obama's choice to head the FCC. This was confirmed by a press release on March 3, 2009.[17] This isn't just some rando who donated money and got an appointment for it.

internaut 10y ago

This is corruption. The selling of public office is always corruption. There is no way to argue otherwise. Of course we have heard this or things like it before, so the shock value has long since faded, but it is important to see properly and not take the new normal as the benchmark. It is clear that a new system of government must be created which solves the oldest governance problem, namely; who watches the watchmen? Wikileaks was theoretically a preliminary stab at answering the question but relies heavily on the public having a sense of responsibility and morality itself, something I don't believe can be counted on. Increasingly I have become convinced that the solution does not lie in transparency, but in obfuscation. Perhaps the deep state points to a possible solution, a public government and a private government. Who can control the controllers if nobody knows who they are, perhaps even themselves. There are a bunch of pesky problems like funding, legitimacy and shutdown protocol to prevent what I feel forced to call the Jason Bourne scenario. There's an interesting and very creative history of this sort of thing going back thousands of years. Containing corruption by using secret languages, using eunuchs, using specially trained aristocratic classes, using random selection from the population.

vannevar 10y ago
The sale of a public office is corruption. But nothing in the article provides any evidence of such a sale, at least nothing that wasn't already public. In every administration we see donors getting appointments. But correlation isn't causation---it's plausible that well-connected, politically active people would both be likely to donate and likely to be appointed to important positions.
- MR4D 10y ago
  For corruption on this scale, we don't need causation. We want people to not only be above board, but we also want the appearances of being above board (so if something even looks bad, our public figures should avoid it). For this, correlation is a much better standard because it forces office holders to stay away from the smoke too. If we had them say, well sure there's smoke but no fire, we'd have Nixon's missing 18 minutes all over the place.
- 10y ago