3 ms·
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 ever
by 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 agoFor 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.
- internaut 10y ago> It's plausible that well-connected, politically active people would both be likely to donate and likely to be appointed to important positions. Legality here is not my concern. It is like nepotism. Sometimes the son should replace the father on merit. He is, after all, more likely to be active in the field and have connections without trading on his DNA. We still recognize that this cannot be a general rule if we care about outcomes.