7 ms·

When a common man does it, it's called bribery. When a lobbyist does it, it's a great law.

by known 10y ago

chrisseaton 10y ago
Most of the people listed in this article aren't politicians, and so can't enact any laws. And even when they are politicians, it looks like they are almost always retired politicians, who can't enact any laws. Some of them are even counter-establishment figures like satirists and even hackers (in the security sense). Hillary Clinton is a prominent example, but the article's explanation is that she is invited as a retired secretary of state, as other retired secretaries of state have been, rather than as a current presidential candidate, which seems reasonable. 'it's a great law' doesn't even make sense in your sentence. What's a great law? Bribing people? Bribing people isn't lawful.
- allendoerfer 10y ago
  Only amateurs bribe any more. Professionals negatively bribe: They sponsor the whole show and just stop giving you money once you oppose.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    You'd be surprised. The distinction you make exists, but it's not about amateurs vs professionals, but obviously about those that can afford it (to "sponsor the whole show") and those who don't. Smaller businesses and interest groups pay their way into laws the traditional bride way all the time.
- leereeves 10y ago
  > she is invited as a retired secretary of state, as other retired secretaries of state have been, rather than as a current presidential candidate Did she leave the part of her that was a future (at the time) presidential candidate at home?
  - chrisseaton 10y ago
    > That seems reasonable? Yes it does to me. If they invite many former secretaries of state it seems reasonable to invite this one. Who cares what she's currently working on if that's not why she was invited? The article even says she hardly mentioned her candidacy. If you're desperate to get worked up about this I can see where you would find the problem, but I think a charitable interpretation is a former secretary of state was invited to talk like many others were.
    - leereeves 10y ago
      > a charitable interpretation Indeed. If you trust her, you may not see a problem, but if you don't trust her, it's easy to argue this is disguised bribery. There's a huge difference between a former secretary of state with no prospects of power in the future and someone everyone knew would run for President in a few years.
      - jomamaxx 10y ago
        It's a conflict of interest wether you trust her or not. It's a very thin line, this game. Clinton should have recused herself from all Clinton Global Initiative issues a long time ago. The massive Clinton fund with millions in donations from all sorts of political actors, mostly in nefarious places, is worse than Trump's excuses for not releasing his taxes (which he should definitely do).
        jomamaxx 10y ago
        Simple conflicts of interest revealed in a one minute Google search: A) Matt Lauer, Tom Brokaw, Anderson Cooper, Fareed Zakaria, Katie Couric - and many others - are all members of the press who are supposed to objectively vet candidates, and who will/have moderated political debates, were previously listed as a 'Notable Members' the Clinton Foundation. [1] B) More than 1/2 of the private entities she met with while Sec of State donated to her Fund - total over $50M. Foreign governments with whom she dealt with directly gave her fund over $170M - this is just the first 1/2 of her term. That's a serious conflict of interest. "Her calendars and emails released as recently as this week describe scores of contacts she (Clinton, as Sec. State) and her top aides (again government officials) had with foundation donors." [2] C) Clinton put someone on a government board (security related) - who had no experience in the field. [3] It's a long list. [1] http://www.mediaite.com/online/flashback-matt-lauer-was-listed-as-a-notable-member-of-clinton-foundation-initiative/ http://www.mediaite.com/online/flashback-matt-lauer-was-list... [2] http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/82df550e1ec646098b434f7d5771f625/many-donors-clinton-foundation-met-her-state http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/82df550e1ec646098b434f7d5... [3] http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intelligence-board/story?id=39710624 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intel...
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  "Most of the people listed in this article aren't politicians, and so can't enact any laws. " They are connected individuals who will provide introductions, lobbying and favours for the people paying for the speech. "but the article's explanation is that she is invited as a retired secretary of state, as other retired secretaries of state have been, rather than as a current presidential candidate, which seems reasonable." This is really a little naive. Hillary Clinton is running for Pres with a 70% chance of getting it, her husband is the #1 most connected man in the world. Over 50% of the private entities she met while Sec of State donated to the Clinton slush fund, to the tune of over $57 million dollars. It's a form of soft corruption - 100%. A $250K 'speaking fee' is just another way to transfer money from an org, to a political entity. A 'donation' to the Clinton Global Initiative is simply a donation to the de-facto Clinton PAC/fund. It's a form of corruption and it's not a secret. You don't donate to Clinton fund - then get an introduction/favour by Clinton by accident. I'm singling out Clinton because you did, but it's the same across the board.

When a common man does it, it's called bribery. When a lobbyist does it, it's a great law.

by known 10y ago

When a common man does it, it's called bribery. When a lobbyist does it, it's a great law.

Most of the people listed in this article aren't politicians, and so can't enact any laws. And even when they are politicians, it looks like they are almost always retired politicians, who can't enact any laws. Some of them are even counter-establishment figures like satirists and even hackers (in the security sense). Hillary Clinton is a prominent example, but the article's explanation is that she is invited as a retired secretary of state, as other retired secretaries of state have been, rather than as a current presidential candidate, which seems reasonable. 'it's a great law' doesn't even make sense in your sentence. What's a great law? Bribing people? Bribing people isn't lawful.

allendoerfer 10y ago
Only amateurs bribe any more. Professionals negatively bribe: They sponsor the whole show and just stop giving you money once you oppose.
- coldtea 10y ago
  You'd be surprised. The distinction you make exists, but it's not about amateurs vs professionals, but obviously about those that can afford it (to "sponsor the whole show") and those who don't. Smaller businesses and interest groups pay their way into laws the traditional bride way all the time.
leereeves 10y ago
> she is invited as a retired secretary of state, as other retired secretaries of state have been, rather than as a current presidential candidate Did she leave the part of her that was a future (at the time) presidential candidate at home?
- chrisseaton 10y ago
  > That seems reasonable? Yes it does to me. If they invite many former secretaries of state it seems reasonable to invite this one. Who cares what she's currently working on if that's not why she was invited? The article even says she hardly mentioned her candidacy. If you're desperate to get worked up about this I can see where you would find the problem, but I think a charitable interpretation is a former secretary of state was invited to talk like many others were.
  - leereeves 10y ago
    > a charitable interpretation Indeed. If you trust her, you may not see a problem, but if you don't trust her, it's easy to argue this is disguised bribery. There's a huge difference between a former secretary of state with no prospects of power in the future and someone everyone knew would run for President in a few years.
    - jomamaxx 10y ago
      It's a conflict of interest wether you trust her or not. It's a very thin line, this game. Clinton should have recused herself from all Clinton Global Initiative issues a long time ago. The massive Clinton fund with millions in donations from all sorts of political actors, mostly in nefarious places, is worse than Trump's excuses for not releasing his taxes (which he should definitely do).
      - jomamaxx 10y ago
        Simple conflicts of interest revealed in a one minute Google search: A) Matt Lauer, Tom Brokaw, Anderson Cooper, Fareed Zakaria, Katie Couric - and many others - are all members of the press who are supposed to objectively vet candidates, and who will/have moderated political debates, were previously listed as a 'Notable Members' the Clinton Foundation. [1] B) More than 1/2 of the private entities she met with while Sec of State donated to her Fund - total over $50M. Foreign governments with whom she dealt with directly gave her fund over $170M - this is just the first 1/2 of her term. That's a serious conflict of interest. "Her calendars and emails released as recently as this week describe scores of contacts she (Clinton, as Sec. State) and her top aides (again government officials) had with foundation donors." [2] C) Clinton put someone on a government board (security related) - who had no experience in the field. [3] It's a long list. [1] http://www.mediaite.com/online/flashback-matt-lauer-was-listed-as-a-notable-member-of-clinton-foundation-initiative/ http://www.mediaite.com/online/flashback-matt-lauer-was-list... [2] http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/82df550e1ec646098b434f7d5771f625/many-donors-clinton-foundation-met-her-state http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/82df550e1ec646098b434f7d5... [3] http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intelligence-board/story?id=39710624 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intel...
jomamaxx 10y ago
"Most of the people listed in this article aren't politicians, and so can't enact any laws. " They are connected individuals who will provide introductions, lobbying and favours for the people paying for the speech. "but the article's explanation is that she is invited as a retired secretary of state, as other retired secretaries of state have been, rather than as a current presidential candidate, which seems reasonable." This is really a little naive. Hillary Clinton is running for Pres with a 70% chance of getting it, her husband is the #1 most connected man in the world. Over 50% of the private entities she met while Sec of State donated to the Clinton slush fund, to the tune of over $57 million dollars. It's a form of soft corruption - 100%. A $250K 'speaking fee' is just another way to transfer money from an org, to a political entity. A 'donation' to the Clinton Global Initiative is simply a donation to the de-facto Clinton PAC/fund. It's a form of corruption and it's not a secret. You don't donate to Clinton fund - then get an introduction/favour by Clinton by accident. I'm singling out Clinton because you did, but it's the same across the board.