3 ms·

Politicians get the power, those who paid for it will ask for favors in return. If you don't see this as corrupt, not sure anything would count as corrupt then.

• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• egdod 7y ago
  Are all political contributions corrupt? If so, would we be better off banning them altogether? (Of course, then the only people who could afford to run successful campaigns would be the independently wealthy...) If not, where’s the line? Citizens United was a case about a relatively narrow question, and the opinion was well reasoned. I believe it was correct. If you think it was wrongly decided, where’s the flaw in its logic?
• rayiner 7y ago
  You're mashing together two different things: helping someone get elected, and getting special "favors" in return for helping someone get elected. What the Supreme Court has said is that the first thing, by itself, is not corruption, whether or not you use money to accomplish that. (And everyone uses money to help politicians get elected, from gross-roots organizations to newspapers who print endorsements. If merely using money to help someone get elected could be regulated as "corruption" the government would have vast powers over political speech.) The second thing, giving special favors to people who helped you get elected, can be corruption, whether or not money is involved, as long as a quid pro quo arrangement can be shown. For example, few people would disagree that its core free speech for newspapers to be able to endorse candidates. (Even the government in Citizens United suggested that the freedom of the press clause might protect newspapers separately from general speech protections.) But if the Washington Post entered into a quid pro quo arrangement with Joe Biden to endorse him in return for favorable legislation that specifically benefited the newspaper, that might be prosecuted as a corrupt quid pro quo arrangement even though no money changed hands. The quid pro quo arrangement in your hypothetical--which Citizens United does not address--is what makes the corruption, not spending money to get someone elected.
  • shmerl 7y ago
    Problem is that first thing directly leads to corruption, so it's a rather poor excuse, and in practice simply legitimizes it.
    • tptacek 7y ago
      By the logic this tossed-off comment employs, deploying any money whatsoever to help someone get elected, even paying Kinkos for signs, or a website hosted out of an S3 bucket, even for a grassroots reformer underdog candidate, "directly leads to corruption". Do you have an argument that would be persuasive to someone who didn't think the entire concept of a market economy leads inexorably to political corruption?
      • shmerl 7y ago
        I'm not looking to persuade those, who think that buying power is good for society, they pretty much support corruption by design. This is addressed to those who oppose corruption, but didn't realize, Citizens United enables it on huge scale.
        • tptacek 7y ago
          That's fine and coherent, but we should recognize that there are two wildly different conversations happening here, because the users of this site broadly favor the notion of market economies --- if not for, like, health care, then at least things like "sign printing" --- and most of them will not read your argument in the "markets are inherently corrupt" frame you intend them.
        • egdod 7y ago
          Please describe for me what your ideal rules would be for political contributions and/or expenditures.