5 ms·
> Thiel reportedly doubled-down and immediately donated $1.25 million to Trump’s campaign Can someone describe corruption and help me understand how it differs
by intopieces 9y ago
> Thiel reportedly doubled-down and immediately donated $1.25 million to Trump’s campaign
Can someone describe corruption and help me understand how it differs from this situation?
- aldoushuxley001 9y agoTrump was a private citizen at the time. That was a donation from Thiel to Trump presidential campaign. Corruption is mostly reservered for government favouritism.
- zorpner 9y agoThe point of the donation was a bet, to receive government favoritism in the event of election. Is that non-obvious?
- jjeaff 9y agoWhich is why basically every big corporation and donor donates to both side of the campaign. This is nothing new. Only difference is that here, Thiel donated to a candidate that didn't get many other big donations because it was presumed he had no chance of winning.
- dogruck 9y ago"Government favoritism" is markedly different from the actual "leadership role in the newly elected government"
- dogruck 9y agoProper corruption typically includes: * Lack of transparency. It's tough to be corrupt in plain sight. * Payment to someone who currently possesses power -- not a public contribution to a political candidate seeking a new office of power.
- croon 9y ago> * Payment to someone who currently possesses power -- not a public contribution to a political candidate seeking a new office of power. The difference is negligible if you consider it a hedge on that person getting into office, upon which time you get rewarded through appointment. A theme that has become a pattern.
- dogruck 9y agoI agree that some people and corporations strategically donate to multiple candidates with the expectation that they'll subsequently have influence. I don't think the difference is neglible though. In particular, voters incorporate the campaign financing into their decision (as we saw people not voting for HRC because of all the cash she got from Wall Street)
- Turing_Machine 9y agoPersonally, I find an explicit campaign contribution to be considerably less sleazy than paying a politician hundreds of thousands of dollars for "making a speech" (a very popular ruse with the Clintons, and now Obama). Less sleazy in that campaign funds have to be accounted for (i.e., actually spent on the campaign, or retained for a future campaign) while "speaking fees" can be spent any way you want.
- Taniwha 9y agoThis is a very American point of view, in the rest of the western world we consider buying off politicians to be be immoral, a corrosive thing inimical with democracy
- jjeaff 9y agoSo the wealthy don't donate to politicians in the rest of the western world?
- jacobush 9y agoActually there are many holdouts were this is frowned upon.
- em3rgent0rdr 9y agoFrounded upon. Sounds like they still do it.
- seren 9y agoActually in Europe, it depends of the country but it is pretty heavily regulated. Parties are paid with a mix of public funding (propotional to the number of vote at the last elections, or number of elected public figures) and private donations. Then for private donation (individual or corporation) there are really low limits. For example in Ireland, the maximum donation for a party per year is about 6,000€. So sure wealthy people can pay up to that amount, but you cannot really be "bought" for that price. I don't think it is comparable to US campaign finance. The system is not perfect either because public funding heavily favours existing parties and so, it is harder to run as an independent.