4 ms·

Personally, I find an explicit campaign contribution to be considerably less sleazy than paying a politician hundreds of thousands of dollars for "making a spee

Personally, 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 ago
This 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 ago
  So the wealthy don't donate to politicians in the rest of the western world?
  - jacobush 9y ago
    Actually there are many holdouts were this is frowned upon.
    - em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
      Frounded upon. Sounds like they still do it.
  - seren 9y ago
    Actually 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.
    - timthelion 9y ago
      Andrej Babiš a Czech Billionaire, payed for the political campaign that put his party, ANO, into power out of pocket. It is certainly not true that all European countries have strict regulations.
  - jmkni 9y ago
    As far as I'm aware, in the UK, no. Wealthy individuals can donate to political parties, but not to individual politicians, and that is tightly regulated. If an individual politician was accepting donations from a wealthy individual or company, it would be a scandal.
    - DanBC 9y ago
      You can donate to individual politicians. Here's one list: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/donations-and-loans-to-other-individuals-and-organisations/regulated-individuals https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-s... Here's some more information: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/donations-and-loans-to-other-individuals-and-organisations https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-s...
      - jmkni 9y ago
        I stand corrected, thanks!
rhcom2 9y ago
Paid speeches aren't partisan, nearly every politician does it - from Giuliani and Bush to Clinton and Gore. I don't even think you can use funds like that as you describe. You'd have to loan the money to your campaign to get past the FEC.
elefanten 9y ago
False equivalence. Campaign contributions and personal income are separate categories. It might feel unsavory that those speeches are indeed personal income for the long list of politicians, from both left and right, who have engaged in that practice. But those events aren't about buying influence, they're about rich wankers feeling special because they get to hear some bullshit commencement address from important people behind closed doors. Those private speeches don't buy any more influence than campaign contributions... which is to say rather little for the presidency. The higher the office, the more visibility and intervening forces there are to keep you from making arbitrary policy in favor of donors. To be clear, I agree these things are bad. And we should strive to remove them entirely from our democracy. But the magnitude of both campaign contributions and private event income is routinely overstated these days.
- KVFinn 9y ago
  >It might feel unsavory that those speeches are indeed personal income for the long list of politicians, from both left and right, who have engaged in that practice. But those events aren't about buying influence, they're about rich wankers feeling special because they get to hear some bullshit commencement address from important people behind closed doors. Also about the fact that people are more likely to sign over millions of dollars in accounts to be managed after they are hanging out in the glow after shaking the hands of somebody they admire. The bank hires Neil Degrasse Tyson or any other celebrity for the same reason. They make money even after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars.
- Turing_Machine 9y ago
  > False equivalence. Campaign contributions and personal income are separate categories. "False equivalence"? I wasn't "equating" anything. The fact that they are separate categories was the entire point. Namely, that campaign contributions have to (at least in theory) be spent on the campaign, while "speaking fees" are pure slush that can be used for anything the politician desires. > Those private speeches don't buy any more influence than campaign contributions... which is to say rather little for the presidency. Are you seriously arguing that politicians aren't influenced when people give them $400,000 of free money (allegedly for standing in front of a crowd and spouting nonsense for 20 minutes)? Dude, these are politicians, not saints.
maxerickson 9y ago
Corruption is all about quid quo pro. So getting sweetheart speaking gigs after you leave office isn't all that likely to lead to corruption charges (unless, say, you believe that Obama has a lot of influence over the present government). The speaking fees the Clinton's accepted during her interregnum were heavily investigated, because they were an easy target. I wonder if a better prosecutor than Chaffetz would have found something.

Taniwha 9y ago

This 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 ago
So the wealthy don't donate to politicians in the rest of the western world?
- jacobush 9y ago
  Actually there are many holdouts were this is frowned upon.
  - em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
    Frounded upon. Sounds like they still do it.
- seren 9y ago
  Actually 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.
  - timthelion 9y ago
    Andrej Babiš a Czech Billionaire, payed for the political campaign that put his party, ANO, into power out of pocket. It is certainly not true that all European countries have strict regulations.
- jmkni 9y ago
  As far as I'm aware, in the UK, no. Wealthy individuals can donate to political parties, but not to individual politicians, and that is tightly regulated. If an individual politician was accepting donations from a wealthy individual or company, it would be a scandal.
  - DanBC 9y ago
    You can donate to individual politicians. Here's one list: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/donations-and-loans-to-other-individuals-and-organisations/regulated-individuals https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-s... Here's some more information: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/donations-and-loans-to-other-individuals-and-organisations https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-s...
    - jmkni 9y ago
      I stand corrected, thanks!

rhcom2 9y ago

Paid speeches aren't partisan, nearly every politician does it - from Giuliani and Bush to Clinton and Gore. I don't even think you can use funds like that as you describe. You'd have to loan the money to your campaign to get past the FEC.

elefanten 9y ago

False equivalence. Campaign contributions and personal income are separate categories. It might feel unsavory that those speeches are indeed personal income for the long list of politicians, from both left and right, who have engaged in that practice. But those events aren't about buying influence, they're about rich wankers feeling special because they get to hear some bullshit commencement address from important people behind closed doors. Those private speeches don't buy any more influence than campaign contributions... which is to say rather little for the presidency. The higher the office, the more visibility and intervening forces there are to keep you from making arbitrary policy in favor of donors. To be clear, I agree these things are bad. And we should strive to remove them entirely from our democracy. But the magnitude of both campaign contributions and private event income is routinely overstated these days.

KVFinn 9y ago
>It might feel unsavory that those speeches are indeed personal income for the long list of politicians, from both left and right, who have engaged in that practice. But those events aren't about buying influence, they're about rich wankers feeling special because they get to hear some bullshit commencement address from important people behind closed doors. Also about the fact that people are more likely to sign over millions of dollars in accounts to be managed after they are hanging out in the glow after shaking the hands of somebody they admire. The bank hires Neil Degrasse Tyson or any other celebrity for the same reason. They make money even after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Turing_Machine 9y ago
> False equivalence. Campaign contributions and personal income are separate categories. "False equivalence"? I wasn't "equating" anything. The fact that they are separate categories was the entire point. Namely, that campaign contributions have to (at least in theory) be spent on the campaign, while "speaking fees" are pure slush that can be used for anything the politician desires. > Those private speeches don't buy any more influence than campaign contributions... which is to say rather little for the presidency. Are you seriously arguing that politicians aren't influenced when people give them $400,000 of free money (allegedly for standing in front of a crowd and spouting nonsense for 20 minutes)? Dude, these are politicians, not saints.

maxerickson 9y ago

Corruption is all about quid quo pro. So getting sweetheart speaking gigs after you leave office isn't all that likely to lead to corruption charges (unless, say, you believe that Obama has a lot of influence over the present government). The speaking fees the Clinton's accepted during her interregnum were heavily investigated, because they were an easy target. I wonder if a better prosecutor than Chaffetz would have found something.