3 ms·

I'm with you but I think the automatic fear is people in power spend that time writing laws that only they understand how to exploit. The scope for meaningful

I'm with you but I think the automatic fear is people in power spend that time writing laws that only they understand how to exploit. The scope for meaningful oversight diminishes as the law gets more and more technical. Financial regulation is both extremely technical and tightly wound into money (obviously). I'm honestly not sure how corruption of office laws cover this stuff. It may not be easy to prove that a loophole existed for later exploitation. How would you punish it if (eg) a third party bought that knowledge in good faith and made billions off it?

germinalphrase 8y ago
In a world where a state governor can accept $175,000 in loans, gifts and other personal benefits from a businessman in exchange for arranging “meetings between [the businessman] and Virginia government officials, hosting and attending events designed to encourage Virginia university researchers to initiate said studies, directly contacting government officials in an effort to encourage said studies, promoteing [the businessman’s] company’s products and recommended that senior government officials meet with the [businessman] to discuss how the company’s products might lower healthcare costs of public employees” without being found guilty of corruption - well, I just don’t feel confident we have any ambition as a country to curtail corruption by our political/business community. I understand the legal arguement - but it just doesn’t seem right that that kind of behavior is above board. [0]https://www.forbes.com/sites/insider/2016/07/13/scotus-quid-pro-quo-analysis-in-mcdonnell-may-broadly-affect-bribery-insider-trading-prosecutions/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/insider/2016/07/13/scotus-quid-...