5 ms·

> 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

> 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.
  - nkoren 9y ago
    No, what you've done is substitute "campaign contributors" for "voters". They're not the same thing, especially when those campaign contributions -- while they may originate with individuals -- are routed through PACs such as the "Lockheed Martin Employees' Political Action Committee (LMEPAC)", making it explicit what those contributions are buying (as opposed to, say, just being generally supportive of a candidate's political philosophy). Shelby is indeed responsive to his campaign contributors. He is not responsive to voters. Conflating those two things is the very essence of the corruption of American democracy. New York is really no different: politicians are responsive to their campaign contributors, not to voters. I'm not saying this to excuse New York: it's a serious problem there. But to say that this is a uniquely New York problem is completely wrong and fails to see the forest for the trees.
    - chimeracoder 9y ago
      > Shelby is indeed responsive to his campaign contributors. He is not responsive to voters. New York is really no different: politicians are responsive to their campaign contributors, not to voters. That's where you're wrong. Campaign contributors have basically no influential power over New York politicians, any more than voters themselves do. Ironically, New York serves as a great counterpoint to your argument, because it has some of the strongest - if not the very strongest* public campaign finance laws in the entire country. > But to say that this is a uniquely New York problem is completely wrong and fails to see the forest for the trees. It sounds like you really don't understand the extent of the problems that exist in New York. Yes, it is a problem unique to New York, because no other state has a political system structured the way New York's is (and no other state has a government as corrupt as New York's is). But again, that's not because "bribery is legal", because (a) it's not, and (b) focusing on "bribery" misses the heart of the actual corruption problems that New York has.
      - nkoren 9y ago
        > Ironically, New York serves as a great counterpoint to your argument, because it has some of the strongest - if not the very strongest* public campaign finance laws in the entire country. There are limits to what individual donors can give, but politicians in New York can still receive unlimited campaign contributions in total.[1] This means that large companies and unions can pool their resources to buy influence, exactly as anywhere else. New York proves that well-regulated bribery is not any better than poorly-regulated bribery. > Campaign contributors have basically no influential power over New York politicians, any more than voters themselves do. So you're saying that the politicians in New York are not receiving substantial campaign contributions from the unions, consultancies, and contractors that are profiting from the 2nd Avenue Subway? Are you quite sure of that? 1: https://www.elections.ny.gov/CFContributionLimits.html https://www.elections.ny.gov/CFContributionLimits.html
- greglindahl 9y ago
  How did you figure out that the cause isn't "getting the most Federal money spent in Alabama"? Newspace doesn't have any Alabama facilities, except for Blue Origin offering to build a factory there if their BE-4 engine is selected for ULA's new Vulcan rocket, which seems likely to happen.

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.
- nkoren 9y ago
  No, what you've done is substitute "campaign contributors" for "voters". They're not the same thing, especially when those campaign contributions -- while they may originate with individuals -- are routed through PACs such as the "Lockheed Martin Employees' Political Action Committee (LMEPAC)", making it explicit what those contributions are buying (as opposed to, say, just being generally supportive of a candidate's political philosophy). Shelby is indeed responsive to his campaign contributors. He is not responsive to voters. Conflating those two things is the very essence of the corruption of American democracy. New York is really no different: politicians are responsive to their campaign contributors, not to voters. I'm not saying this to excuse New York: it's a serious problem there. But to say that this is a uniquely New York problem is completely wrong and fails to see the forest for the trees.
  - chimeracoder 9y ago
    > Shelby is indeed responsive to his campaign contributors. He is not responsive to voters. New York is really no different: politicians are responsive to their campaign contributors, not to voters. That's where you're wrong. Campaign contributors have basically no influential power over New York politicians, any more than voters themselves do. Ironically, New York serves as a great counterpoint to your argument, because it has some of the strongest - if not the very strongest* public campaign finance laws in the entire country. > But to say that this is a uniquely New York problem is completely wrong and fails to see the forest for the trees. It sounds like you really don't understand the extent of the problems that exist in New York. Yes, it is a problem unique to New York, because no other state has a political system structured the way New York's is (and no other state has a government as corrupt as New York's is). But again, that's not because "bribery is legal", because (a) it's not, and (b) focusing on "bribery" misses the heart of the actual corruption problems that New York has.
    - nkoren 9y ago
      > Ironically, New York serves as a great counterpoint to your argument, because it has some of the strongest - if not the very strongest* public campaign finance laws in the entire country. There are limits to what individual donors can give, but politicians in New York can still receive unlimited campaign contributions in total.[1] This means that large companies and unions can pool their resources to buy influence, exactly as anywhere else. New York proves that well-regulated bribery is not any better than poorly-regulated bribery. > Campaign contributors have basically no influential power over New York politicians, any more than voters themselves do. So you're saying that the politicians in New York are not receiving substantial campaign contributions from the unions, consultancies, and contractors that are profiting from the 2nd Avenue Subway? Are you quite sure of that? 1: https://www.elections.ny.gov/CFContributionLimits.html https://www.elections.ny.gov/CFContributionLimits.html
greglindahl 9y ago
How did you figure out that the cause isn't "getting the most Federal money spent in Alabama"? Newspace doesn't have any Alabama facilities, except for Blue Origin offering to build a factory there if their BE-4 engine is selected for ULA's new Vulcan rocket, which seems likely to happen.