11 ms·

Anyone who thinks America doesn't have a lot of corruption doesn't understand how the world works. I've been driving around Africa for 2 years now, and at leas

by grecy 8y ago

Anyone who thinks America doesn't have a lot of corruption doesn't understand how the world works. I've been driving around Africa for 2 years now, and at least here it's always really blatant and clear.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> at least here it's always really blatant and clear Because there is more of it.
- grecy 8y ago
  No. It's because it happens face to face between regular people on the street. i.e. me and a military man holding an AK 47. In America, it happens behind closed doors in boardrooms and offices. 'Unlimited Campaign Contributions' is nothing more than newspeak for corruption. By very definition, it is about paying a person in a position of power to make a decision that is in your favor.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > 'Unlimited Campaign Contributions' is nothing more than newspeak for corruption. By very definition, it is about paying a person in a position of power to make a decision that is in your favor. You are equating two different things. One, giving a politician money they can spend on personal luxuries for a political favor. Two, giving a strictly-regulated campaign money it can spend on advertising, political functions, et cetera, or less-regulated PACs. Personal versus political benefits is one major diffference. Prevalence, and the necessity of engaging with corrupt organs to survive and thrive, is another. Claiming corruption in America even rivals most of the world is unsubstantiated. The inverse is well substantiated.
    - rrggrr 8y ago
      Must disagree. If you have money it is easier to find equality/justice. My favorite example: If you can afford it, you can get a license plate expressing your support for the state police (or your state bird). You can add to that fraternal order decals further expressing your support for the police. Does your willingness and ability to purchase those things make you MORE or LESS likely to receive special treatment during a traffic stop than someone without the ability to do so. Think about this.
      - pc86 8y ago
        Have you ever spoken to a police officer? I've worked with several, I've served on a borough council and a civil service commission, I've been contracted out to regional and state law enforcement agencies. Nobody cares about the little sticker you put on your license plate. It's a $5 fundraiser. In my state I think the non-LEO license plates you're talking about are an extra $30 or $40 on top of your normal registration fees. The only thing I've ever heard having any affect like what you're implying are the "police courtesy cards," PBA/FOP cards, whatever they're called in your state. And I haven't heard of them actually preventing any punishment, just incurring more of it.
        lotsofpulp 8y ago
        If governments were serious about preventing corruption, they would have outlawed all those fake police badges and vanity license plates. The only purpose they can serve is to corrupt.
        Scoundreller 8y ago
        Why would you hear about the cases of PBA/FOP cards preventing punishment? The whole point of those interactions is to not talk about what happened. Small gifts can have a big effect. There’s a reason drug reps always want to buy doctors lunches. It’s not for charity: that low double-digit “gift” pays for itself. And the out-the-door cost is $hundreds.
        pc86 8y ago
        What I meant was I know people who have PBA/FOP cards, have tried to use them, and have gotten a tongue lashing in response in conjunction with no leniency at all. The only ones I've heard of ever working as intended are the courtesy cards for immediate family, and the general consensus is that dealing with your State Trooper father that night is as bad or worse than a $300 speeding ticket.
    - Buldak 8y ago
      I don't see a meaningful difference between personal and political spending here. If I can pay a politician to enact a policy I want, perhaps to the detriment of his constituency or society at large, what do I care if he goes on to spend that money on sports cars or his campaign to retain office? As far as I'm concerned it's quid pro quo either way.
      - Green_man 8y ago
        This might be pedantic, but legally speaking, if you were to "pay a politician" for voting a certain way, it would be highly illegal. "quid pro quo", on a campaign contribution or a porsche or a briefcase of cash is all illegal.
        calgoo 8y ago
        IMO, lobbying is legalized bribing, so too me, lobbying is paying a politician to vote or do as you ask.
        JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > lobbying is legalized bribing So when I call my elected leaders to voice up about an issue, that's bribery? Because what I'm doing is lobbying. Or, if I call my elected leader and patch in a friend in another state who's more knowledgeable about the domain, is that lobbying? If it's not, then what if my friend and I both patch in an out-of-district friend? What if we form a formal club? If we want (a) freedom of political speech and (b) freedom of political assembly, it gets really hard to separate a grassroots interest group from a destructive commercial one. (And should civic interests always trump commercial interests? That's a political question, too!) TL; DR Democracy can't exist without lobbying. With respect to paid lobbying, I might agree, but the devil's in the details.
      - tzs 8y ago
        You aren't taking into account causality. "Here's a sports car for you if you vote the way I like on this issue": this suggests that the sports car bought the vote, and so is indicative of corruption. "I like your position on this issue, here's some money for your campaign to help you get elected, and that can only be spent for that": this suggests that the position is the cause of the money, not the other way around, and so is not indicative of corruption.
    - ionised 8y ago
      > Personal versus political benefits is one major diffference. Prevalence, and the necessity of engaging with corrupt organs to survive and thrive, is another. The political benefits beget personal benefits. That's the point. They are both corruption under two different names, no matter how you prevaricate.
      - tzs 8y ago
        Alice runs for office, saying she supports certain positions and policies and will work toward them if elected. Bob, who agrees with those policies and positions, gives a large donation to Alice's campaign. Alice wins, and works toward those positions and policies. Are you saying Alice is corrupt because her campaign took money from someone who agreed with her stated positions?
    - everybodyknows 8y ago
      To substantiate your point about campaign accounts: U.S. Representative Duncan Hunter is currently under indictment for spending campaign money on personal wants: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-duncan-hunter-poll-20180927-story.html http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-duncan-hunter-poll...
    - torpfactory 8y ago
      Let's not forget how many politicians, after receiving 'legal' campaign dollars while or before their time in office end up in lucrative sinecures after leaving their elected positions. While they technically weren't bribed by today's myopically narrow interpretation of the crime, I would say this arrangement reeks of corruption to most. There's also the personal utility view of this - if it is power they desire and you finance their acquisition of power, isn't that in a sense bribery? If they want power, why buy them a sports car.... It's clear to me that we need real campaign finance reform. No more dark money or third party political action committees. The fate of our democracy probably depends on it.
      - tmaly 8y ago
        Just look at some of the former presidents in the US and what they are paid for speeches for book deals. These enormous sums are far outside the normal. It reeks corruption.
    - grecy 8y ago
      > You are equating two different things. One, giving a politician money they can spend on personal luxuries for a political favor. Two, giving a strictly-regulated campaign money it can spend on advertising, political functions, et cetera, or less-regulated PACs. You forgot to add "for political favor" on the end of the third sentence. I don't care how they're spending it, they're being given it because the person doing the giving wants a decision made in their favor. That's the very definition of bribery and corruption. i.e. High Mr. Politician. I will give you $600,000 in "campaign contributions" so long as you vote against this particular thing that would be very inconvenient to my profits.
  - Retric 8y ago
    Africa has both, so the face to face corruption in no way supersedes the more wide scale corruption.
  - SonnyWortzik 8y ago
    "By very definition, it is about paying a person in a position of power to make a decision that is in your favor." Why do you think that is? Is it Ideology? Or is it just profitable to get that decision in their favor?
  - geezerjay 8y ago
    > No. It's because it happens face to face between regular people on the street. i.e. me and a military man holding an AK 47. > >In America, it happens behind closed doors in boardrooms and offices. Your comment makes no sense at all. Do you believe that in the land where military men carrying AK47 overtly demand bribes you don't see any corruption happening behind closed doors? In fact, the only reasonable take from your observation is that there might be corruption in the US but at least society is effective at shutting down corruption by lowly law enforcement officers.
  - cbluth 8y ago
    > me and a military man holding an AK 47 Sounds blatantly clear to me.
- _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
  There's more low-level corruption, which makes the existence of corruption generally more obvious to your man on the street.
- prairiedogg 8y ago
  Whether there is more corruption in Africa or the United States probably depends on qualifying statements like "Where in Africa?", "Where in the United States?", and importantly "What constitutes corruption?" The United States and Africa are both enormous land masses. While the United States is nominally a single country, it has enormous differences in culture from region to region, and even between different populations in the same region. Africa has lots of different countries, climates, cultures, etc. "There is more corruption in Africa than the United States" is too general a statement to be meaningful. You can make meaningful, specific statements about the corruption in each place. I've never been to Africa, but two glaring and public examples of what I would call corruption in the United States from recent years are: - the current President openly patronizes his own businesses using public funds, in what appears to be a clear violation of emoluments laws. The parts of the government responsible for ensuring the executive branch follows these laws have failed to engage in oversight or curtail this practice in any meaningful way. - law enforcement officials routinely take property from individuals (under the widely adopted practice of civil asset forfeiture) without charging the individuals with any crime, in what appears to be a clear violation of the fourth amendment of the constitution. There is corruption in America. It is really blatant and clear. The extent to which you experience it may vary, but at a minimum, reasonable people have to agree that it exists, and it exists right on the surface for everyone to see.
gojomo 8y ago
Despite that refreshing clarity, when corruption is overt and blatant, it becomes even more entrenched and damaging. It's hard to muster even local, contingent alliances against it. A society that aspirationally pretends it has less corruption than it really does can often better contain corruption. The magnitude and practices of corruption can be confined to certain sectors & ritualized, obscured mechanisms – and its expansion checked with a surviving norm that "here, we don't do that".
SonnyWortzik 8y ago
What is common about their corruption and ours that you notice?
RestlessMind 8y ago
Anyone who thinks corruption in the USA (or Western Europe) is the same as a third world country hasn't really lived in a third world country. It's literally a whole new level - right from getting a driver's license to being forced to sell your home because local goon wants to build something on your land to entire judiciary blatantly ruling in favor of the one who pays the most to politicians running the county in spite of multiple stints in prison....I can go on and on. There is a reason why the masses are clamoring to get to EU or USA, immigration hurdles notwithstanding. And clean governance without much hassle to your daily life is a big part of it.

by grecy 8y ago

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> at least here it's always really blatant and clear Because there is more of it.

grecy 8y ago
No. It's because it happens face to face between regular people on the street. i.e. me and a military man holding an AK 47. In America, it happens behind closed doors in boardrooms and offices. 'Unlimited Campaign Contributions' is nothing more than newspeak for corruption. By very definition, it is about paying a person in a position of power to make a decision that is in your favor.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > 'Unlimited Campaign Contributions' is nothing more than newspeak for corruption. By very definition, it is about paying a person in a position of power to make a decision that is in your favor. You are equating two different things. One, giving a politician money they can spend on personal luxuries for a political favor. Two, giving a strictly-regulated campaign money it can spend on advertising, political functions, et cetera, or less-regulated PACs. Personal versus political benefits is one major diffference. Prevalence, and the necessity of engaging with corrupt organs to survive and thrive, is another. Claiming corruption in America even rivals most of the world is unsubstantiated. The inverse is well substantiated.
  - rrggrr 8y ago
    Must disagree. If you have money it is easier to find equality/justice. My favorite example: If you can afford it, you can get a license plate expressing your support for the state police (or your state bird). You can add to that fraternal order decals further expressing your support for the police. Does your willingness and ability to purchase those things make you MORE or LESS likely to receive special treatment during a traffic stop than someone without the ability to do so. Think about this.
    - pc86 8y ago
      Have you ever spoken to a police officer? I've worked with several, I've served on a borough council and a civil service commission, I've been contracted out to regional and state law enforcement agencies. Nobody cares about the little sticker you put on your license plate. It's a $5 fundraiser. In my state I think the non-LEO license plates you're talking about are an extra $30 or $40 on top of your normal registration fees. The only thing I've ever heard having any affect like what you're implying are the "police courtesy cards," PBA/FOP cards, whatever they're called in your state. And I haven't heard of them actually preventing any punishment, just incurring more of it.
      - lotsofpulp 8y ago
        If governments were serious about preventing corruption, they would have outlawed all those fake police badges and vanity license plates. The only purpose they can serve is to corrupt.
      - Scoundreller 8y ago
        Why would you hear about the cases of PBA/FOP cards preventing punishment? The whole point of those interactions is to not talk about what happened. Small gifts can have a big effect. There’s a reason drug reps always want to buy doctors lunches. It’s not for charity: that low double-digit “gift” pays for itself. And the out-the-door cost is $hundreds.
        pc86 8y ago
        What I meant was I know people who have PBA/FOP cards, have tried to use them, and have gotten a tongue lashing in response in conjunction with no leniency at all. The only ones I've heard of ever working as intended are the courtesy cards for immediate family, and the general consensus is that dealing with your State Trooper father that night is as bad or worse than a $300 speeding ticket.
  - Buldak 8y ago
    I don't see a meaningful difference between personal and political spending here. If I can pay a politician to enact a policy I want, perhaps to the detriment of his constituency or society at large, what do I care if he goes on to spend that money on sports cars or his campaign to retain office? As far as I'm concerned it's quid pro quo either way.
    - Green_man 8y ago
      This might be pedantic, but legally speaking, if you were to "pay a politician" for voting a certain way, it would be highly illegal. "quid pro quo", on a campaign contribution or a porsche or a briefcase of cash is all illegal.
      - calgoo 8y ago
        IMO, lobbying is legalized bribing, so too me, lobbying is paying a politician to vote or do as you ask.
        JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > lobbying is legalized bribing So when I call my elected leaders to voice up about an issue, that's bribery? Because what I'm doing is lobbying. Or, if I call my elected leader and patch in a friend in another state who's more knowledgeable about the domain, is that lobbying? If it's not, then what if my friend and I both patch in an out-of-district friend? What if we form a formal club? If we want (a) freedom of political speech and (b) freedom of political assembly, it gets really hard to separate a grassroots interest group from a destructive commercial one. (And should civic interests always trump commercial interests? That's a political question, too!) TL; DR Democracy can't exist without lobbying. With respect to paid lobbying, I might agree, but the devil's in the details.
    - tzs 8y ago
      You aren't taking into account causality. "Here's a sports car for you if you vote the way I like on this issue": this suggests that the sports car bought the vote, and so is indicative of corruption. "I like your position on this issue, here's some money for your campaign to help you get elected, and that can only be spent for that": this suggests that the position is the cause of the money, not the other way around, and so is not indicative of corruption.
  - ionised 8y ago
    > Personal versus political benefits is one major diffference. Prevalence, and the necessity of engaging with corrupt organs to survive and thrive, is another. The political benefits beget personal benefits. That's the point. They are both corruption under two different names, no matter how you prevaricate.
    - tzs 8y ago
      Alice runs for office, saying she supports certain positions and policies and will work toward them if elected. Bob, who agrees with those policies and positions, gives a large donation to Alice's campaign. Alice wins, and works toward those positions and policies. Are you saying Alice is corrupt because her campaign took money from someone who agreed with her stated positions?
  - everybodyknows 8y ago
    To substantiate your point about campaign accounts: U.S. Representative Duncan Hunter is currently under indictment for spending campaign money on personal wants: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-duncan-hunter-poll-20180927-story.html http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-duncan-hunter-poll...
  - torpfactory 8y ago
    Let's not forget how many politicians, after receiving 'legal' campaign dollars while or before their time in office end up in lucrative sinecures after leaving their elected positions. While they technically weren't bribed by today's myopically narrow interpretation of the crime, I would say this arrangement reeks of corruption to most. There's also the personal utility view of this - if it is power they desire and you finance their acquisition of power, isn't that in a sense bribery? If they want power, why buy them a sports car.... It's clear to me that we need real campaign finance reform. No more dark money or third party political action committees. The fate of our democracy probably depends on it.
    - tmaly 8y ago
      Just look at some of the former presidents in the US and what they are paid for speeches for book deals. These enormous sums are far outside the normal. It reeks corruption.
  - grecy 8y ago
    > You are equating two different things. One, giving a politician money they can spend on personal luxuries for a political favor. Two, giving a strictly-regulated campaign money it can spend on advertising, political functions, et cetera, or less-regulated PACs. You forgot to add "for political favor" on the end of the third sentence. I don't care how they're spending it, they're being given it because the person doing the giving wants a decision made in their favor. That's the very definition of bribery and corruption. i.e. High Mr. Politician. I will give you $600,000 in "campaign contributions" so long as you vote against this particular thing that would be very inconvenient to my profits.
- Retric 8y ago
  Africa has both, so the face to face corruption in no way supersedes the more wide scale corruption.
- SonnyWortzik 8y ago
  "By very definition, it is about paying a person in a position of power to make a decision that is in your favor." Why do you think that is? Is it Ideology? Or is it just profitable to get that decision in their favor?
- geezerjay 8y ago
  > No. It's because it happens face to face between regular people on the street. i.e. me and a military man holding an AK 47. > >In America, it happens behind closed doors in boardrooms and offices. Your comment makes no sense at all. Do you believe that in the land where military men carrying AK47 overtly demand bribes you don't see any corruption happening behind closed doors? In fact, the only reasonable take from your observation is that there might be corruption in the US but at least society is effective at shutting down corruption by lowly law enforcement officers.
- cbluth 8y ago
  > me and a military man holding an AK 47 Sounds blatantly clear to me.
_emacsomancer_ 8y ago
There's more low-level corruption, which makes the existence of corruption generally more obvious to your man on the street.
prairiedogg 8y ago
Whether there is more corruption in Africa or the United States probably depends on qualifying statements like "Where in Africa?", "Where in the United States?", and importantly "What constitutes corruption?" The United States and Africa are both enormous land masses. While the United States is nominally a single country, it has enormous differences in culture from region to region, and even between different populations in the same region. Africa has lots of different countries, climates, cultures, etc. "There is more corruption in Africa than the United States" is too general a statement to be meaningful. You can make meaningful, specific statements about the corruption in each place. I've never been to Africa, but two glaring and public examples of what I would call corruption in the United States from recent years are: - the current President openly patronizes his own businesses using public funds, in what appears to be a clear violation of emoluments laws. The parts of the government responsible for ensuring the executive branch follows these laws have failed to engage in oversight or curtail this practice in any meaningful way. - law enforcement officials routinely take property from individuals (under the widely adopted practice of civil asset forfeiture) without charging the individuals with any crime, in what appears to be a clear violation of the fourth amendment of the constitution. There is corruption in America. It is really blatant and clear. The extent to which you experience it may vary, but at a minimum, reasonable people have to agree that it exists, and it exists right on the surface for everyone to see.

gojomo 8y ago

Despite that refreshing clarity, when corruption is overt and blatant, it becomes even more entrenched and damaging. It's hard to muster even local, contingent alliances against it. A society that aspirationally pretends it has less corruption than it really does can often better contain corruption. The magnitude and practices of corruption can be confined to certain sectors & ritualized, obscured mechanisms – and its expansion checked with a surviving norm that "here, we don't do that".

SonnyWortzik 8y ago

What is common about their corruption and ours that you notice?

RestlessMind 8y ago

Anyone who thinks corruption in the USA (or Western Europe) is the same as a third world country hasn't really lived in a third world country. It's literally a whole new level - right from getting a driver's license to being forced to sell your home because local goon wants to build something on your land to entire judiciary blatantly ruling in favor of the one who pays the most to politicians running the county in spite of multiple stints in prison....I can go on and on. There is a reason why the masses are clamoring to get to EU or USA, immigration hurdles notwithstanding. And clean governance without much hassle to your daily life is a big part of it.