4 ms·

> That's because you've legalized bribery. Your political system rewards corruption. Every actor in the described mess is (re)acting rationally. Is this somehow

> That's because you've legalized bribery. Your political system rewards corruption. Every actor in the described mess is (re)acting rationally. Is this somehow a surprise? Ugh, please stop saying this. Bribery is not legal in the US. We literally just tried a sitting US senator for corruption including bribery, and we just convicted the former Speaker of the New York State Assembly for corruption, including bribery and kickbacks. It's very much not legal. New York politics is an outlier - in fact, New York has literally the most corrupt government in the country. The problem isn't that it's legal (it's not legal); the problem is that New York has such a wide and extensive network of corruption (as this article shows) that it's damn-near impossible to actually address any of it.

reustle 9y ago
But campaign donations by corporate interests and lobbying _are_ essentially legal bribery.
- chimeracoder 9y ago
  > But campaign donations by corporate interests and lobbying _are_ essentially legal bribery. Campaign contributions and lobbying are not at all the same thing. First, "Corporate interests" are prohibited from making campaign contributions. Secondly, lobbying is simply the process of petitioning elected officials to persuade them to advocate your causes. That's not unique to the US; every democracy has a mechanism for that process.
nkoren 9y ago
Bribery absolutely is legal in America -- as long as the funds go towards campaign finance, rather than directly into the politician's personal pocket. Which then gets them a job, which puts funds in their pocket; and in exchange for which, they ensure that government contracts and regulations look favorably upon their donors. Call it what you want, but this is absolutely homomorphic with corruption.
- chimeracoder 9y ago
  > Bribery absolutely is legal in America -- as long as the funds go towards campaign finance, rather than directly into the politician's personal pocket. Which then gets them a job, which puts funds in their pocket; and in exchange for which, they ensure that government contracts and regulations look favorably upon their donors. Call it what you want, but this is absolutely homomorphic with corruption. What you're describing is completely illegal. Politicians can be (and are) prosecuted for it, even in incredibly corrupt states like New York.
  - nkoren 9y ago
    Rubbish. As long as there is no explicit link between the money and the results, this is completely legal, open, and standard practice. Consider Senator Richard Shelby[1]. He is a staunch advocate of the "Space Launch System" -- a rocket program that looks the 2nd avenue subway look like a paragon of efficiency. He is an equally staunch opponent of "new-space" companies like SpaceX, which don't take cost-plus contracts or make significant campaign contributions.[2] Of course one could argue that he's just acting in accordance with his principles, and that it's just a crazy coincidence that Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon -- the prime SLS contractors -- are among his top 20 campaign contributors.[3] Nope, he's just acting in accordance to his principles, and they're, uh, just acting in accordance with, uh, theirs. No cause-and-effect here, nope, nothing to see. Bullshit. There's clearly a cause-and-effect, and this is completely standard practice across the whole of the government, and would absolutely be classed as bribery anywhere else in the world. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Shelby https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Shelby 2: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/06/senator-complains-about-cost-increases-in-nasas-fixed-price-contracts/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/06/senator-complains-ab... 3: https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/contributors?cid=N00009920&cycle=2012&type=P https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/contributors...
    - chimeracoder 9y ago
      > Of course one could argue that he's just acting in accordance with his principles, and that it's just a crazy coincidence that Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon -- the prime SLS contractors -- are among his top 20 campaign contributors That sounds a lot less scandalous when you realize that those top 20 campaign contributors listed aren't the companies themselves - the contributors are all employees of those companies. Companies are prohibited from making campaign contributions; all of those contributions are from the employees themselves, using after-tax money, and the only reason employer information is collected is to prove that companies aren't funneling money to campaigns under their employees' names. It's not surprising that employees of Lockheed Martin - the largest government contractor in the country - would support the candidacy of a politician who advocates awarding government contracts. What do you expect them to do - vote for a candidate who wants to eliminate government contracts? The idea that a politician takes actions in order to appease the people who voted for them (or persuade those who might vote for them) isn't scandalous; it's exactly what we'd expect in a healthy democracy. New York isn't a healthy democracy, which is why this doesn't happen in New York at all. So get back to the problem at hand, the issue with New York government specifically isn't that we have too much of this process - it's that New York politicians aren't accountable to voters at all in the first place, as I've explained throughout this thread, and as been documented by the New York Times in this and other articles.

reustle 9y ago

But campaign donations by corporate interests and lobbying _are_ essentially legal bribery.

chimeracoder 9y ago
> But campaign donations by corporate interests and lobbying _are_ essentially legal bribery. Campaign contributions and lobbying are not at all the same thing. First, "Corporate interests" are prohibited from making campaign contributions. Secondly, lobbying is simply the process of petitioning elected officials to persuade them to advocate your causes. That's not unique to the US; every democracy has a mechanism for that process.

nkoren 9y ago

Bribery absolutely is legal in America -- as long as the funds go towards campaign finance, rather than directly into the politician's personal pocket. Which then gets them a job, which puts funds in their pocket; and in exchange for which, they ensure that government contracts and regulations look favorably upon their donors. Call it what you want, but this is absolutely homomorphic with corruption.

chimeracoder 9y ago
> Bribery absolutely is legal in America -- as long as the funds go towards campaign finance, rather than directly into the politician's personal pocket. Which then gets them a job, which puts funds in their pocket; and in exchange for which, they ensure that government contracts and regulations look favorably upon their donors. Call it what you want, but this is absolutely homomorphic with corruption. What you're describing is completely illegal. Politicians can be (and are) prosecuted for it, even in incredibly corrupt states like New York.
- nkoren 9y ago
  Rubbish. As long as there is no explicit link between the money and the results, this is completely legal, open, and standard practice. Consider Senator Richard Shelby[1]. He is a staunch advocate of the "Space Launch System" -- a rocket program that looks the 2nd avenue subway look like a paragon of efficiency. He is an equally staunch opponent of "new-space" companies like SpaceX, which don't take cost-plus contracts or make significant campaign contributions.[2] Of course one could argue that he's just acting in accordance with his principles, and that it's just a crazy coincidence that Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon -- the prime SLS contractors -- are among his top 20 campaign contributors.[3] Nope, he's just acting in accordance to his principles, and they're, uh, just acting in accordance with, uh, theirs. No cause-and-effect here, nope, nothing to see. Bullshit. There's clearly a cause-and-effect, and this is completely standard practice across the whole of the government, and would absolutely be classed as bribery anywhere else in the world. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Shelby https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Shelby 2: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/06/senator-complains-about-cost-increases-in-nasas-fixed-price-contracts/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/06/senator-complains-ab... 3: https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/contributors?cid=N00009920&cycle=2012&type=P https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/contributors...
  - chimeracoder 9y ago
    > Of course one could argue that he's just acting in accordance with his principles, and that it's just a crazy coincidence that Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon -- the prime SLS contractors -- are among his top 20 campaign contributors That sounds a lot less scandalous when you realize that those top 20 campaign contributors listed aren't the companies themselves - the contributors are all employees of those companies. Companies are prohibited from making campaign contributions; all of those contributions are from the employees themselves, using after-tax money, and the only reason employer information is collected is to prove that companies aren't funneling money to campaigns under their employees' names. It's not surprising that employees of Lockheed Martin - the largest government contractor in the country - would support the candidacy of a politician who advocates awarding government contracts. What do you expect them to do - vote for a candidate who wants to eliminate government contracts? The idea that a politician takes actions in order to appease the people who voted for them (or persuade those who might vote for them) isn't scandalous; it's exactly what we'd expect in a healthy democracy. New York isn't a healthy democracy, which is why this doesn't happen in New York at all. So get back to the problem at hand, the issue with New York government specifically isn't that we have too much of this process - it's that New York politicians aren't accountable to voters at all in the first place, as I've explained throughout this thread, and as been documented by the New York Times in this and other articles.