4 ms·

Apologies for my cynicism, but given that this happens pretty frequently [1] I can't ignore the incentives when dealing with such large amounts of money. [1] h

by tabeth 9y ago

Apologies for my cynicism, but given that this happens pretty frequently [1] I can't ignore the incentives when dealing with such large amounts of money. [1] http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2018/02/tax_credit_bribery_scheme_deta.html http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2018/02/tax_cre... [2] http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/harford/aegis/ph-ag-army-contractor-indicted-0302-story.html http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/harford/aegis/ph-a... [3] http://www.wjcl.com/article/chatham-area-transit-contractor-convicted-of-bribery-fraud/19410216 http://www.wjcl.com/article/chatham-area-transit-contractor-... Transparency is a good way of preventing corruption. I don't have a citation off hand, but I'm pretty confident that this is true. I'll dig one up if you're curious.

CGamesPlay 9y ago
I still am not sure that "trivial" is the right level to rate the ability to bribe government officials is at. After all, each of those links points to a person charged or convicted of bribery, meaning that the people privy to the situation raised it with the authorities deliberately or through incompetence. Thinking about what the collusion would look like here, I think faking the drawing (which is a well-publicized event) is more difficult than having a ticket printed after the numbers are drawn. In the latter case, who has to be "in on it" for it to succeed? It seems like an audit trail on each ticket would be sufficient, proving the time that it was purchased. It seems like this would require a lot of forged evidence in order to successfully pull off that scheme, and it doesn't require that the audit log be publicly disclosed. Or at least, who is the winner of the lottery hidden from? Is it hidden from the IRS? Is it hidden from the disbursement department at the lottery? Is it hidden from the issuer of the original lottery ticket? These all represent groups of people who you would have to buy out in order to successfully collude.
- alsetmusic 9y ago
  > After all, each of those links points to a person charged or convicted of bribery, meaning that the people privy to the situation raised it with the authorities deliberately or through incompetence. This logic is flawed. Any time you hear about someone getting caught, there are additional instances in which someone got away with it. You don’t read about a murderer getting caught and conclude that the problem of murder is not in effect.
- doorbumper 9y ago
  Trivial appears to be the right word. In the linked cases of bribery government officials were bribed for a hundred to hundreds of thousands of dollars. When public officials are bribed, they all tend to be in that ballpark. What happens when you can offer dozens of millions of dollars, or a hundred million or more to the right official? Most likely, no one would ever need to offer that high of a number.

by tabeth 9y ago

CGamesPlay 9y ago

I still am not sure that "trivial" is the right level to rate the ability to bribe government officials is at. After all, each of those links points to a person charged or convicted of bribery, meaning that the people privy to the situation raised it with the authorities deliberately or through incompetence. Thinking about what the collusion would look like here, I think faking the drawing (which is a well-publicized event) is more difficult than having a ticket printed after the numbers are drawn. In the latter case, who has to be "in on it" for it to succeed? It seems like an audit trail on each ticket would be sufficient, proving the time that it was purchased. It seems like this would require a lot of forged evidence in order to successfully pull off that scheme, and it doesn't require that the audit log be publicly disclosed. Or at least, who is the winner of the lottery hidden from? Is it hidden from the IRS? Is it hidden from the disbursement department at the lottery? Is it hidden from the issuer of the original lottery ticket? These all represent groups of people who you would have to buy out in order to successfully collude.

alsetmusic 9y ago
> After all, each of those links points to a person charged or convicted of bribery, meaning that the people privy to the situation raised it with the authorities deliberately or through incompetence. This logic is flawed. Any time you hear about someone getting caught, there are additional instances in which someone got away with it. You don’t read about a murderer getting caught and conclude that the problem of murder is not in effect.
doorbumper 9y ago
Trivial appears to be the right word. In the linked cases of bribery government officials were bribed for a hundred to hundreds of thousands of dollars. When public officials are bribed, they all tend to be in that ballpark. What happens when you can offer dozens of millions of dollars, or a hundred million or more to the right official? Most likely, no one would ever need to offer that high of a number.