5 ms·

Well, the former is literally in the Constitution and the later is not, so ...

mikysco 5y ago
Yes but the principal is the same, no? Somebody in a position of power who has strong influence over decisions that happen outside the context of the free market economy should be restricted from participating in those investable opportunities. Nobody is saying what she is doing is explicitly illegal. But it's abundantly unethical and, imo, a clear abuse of power. Her tone deaf response in this story only adds fuel to the controversy.
- mc32 5y ago
  Exactly. We have the current example of Senator Wyden who blocked the China Forced Labor bill who received ~$60k in cash from Nike... how is that not quid pro quo?
  - jjeaff 5y ago
    I think you oversimplify the situation. That's $60k in public campaign donations by executive employees of Nike. Which is based in Oregon, the state that Wyden represents. Also, $60k isn't that much, considering Wyden usually raises between $4 and $8 million during a reelection year. My guess is that he would be more swayed by the fact that Nike is one of the largest employers in Oregon. Like it or hate it, this is the system we have, I don't see any evidence that Wyden is being bought off any more than any other Senator that accepts campaign donations from special interests (which is all of them).
- titzer 5y ago
  Foreign leaders staying in the hotel chain of the sitting President is pretty blatant corruption. It was even in "the transcript" if anyone remembers back that far. Pepperidge Farm remembers.
  - wk_end 5y ago
    Who are you arguing with? No one is defending Trump here. Just because Trump was corrupt doesn't mean that it's OK for his opponents - who've explicitly called out his corruption - to be corrupt.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Foreign leaders staying in the hotel chain of the sitting President is pretty blatant corruption. That's about the foreign emoluments clause (which already applies to other public officials including Congress), not the Presidential (domestic) emoluments clause, which is about the President getting money or other material benefit other than those legally due to his office from the federal or state government (which was also an issue with Trump's DC hotel, for many reasons, just not “foreign leaders staying there”.)
ithinkso 5y ago
Constitution can be amended but the Congress would have to amend it against their own private interest so of course it will not happen (but should)... the point you're making is moot though
- dariusj18 5y ago
  Well the Constitution can be amended without Congress via a Constitutional Convention. My point wasn't moot though, it was a direct response to PC which was asking why someone's rhetoric around a literal clause of the Constitution defining the most powerful role in government. A clause that isn't defined for Representatives, whom are not singular in their power, and collectively are given the power to set their own rules. Not to say that a debate cannot be had, but PC was trying to make it seem that there was hypocrisy afoot.
rhino369 5y ago
And the emoluments clause doesn't say POTUS cannot own interest in foreign companies. That is a creative re-interpretation invented in 2016.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dariusj18 5y ago
  I'm not sure I've heard that argued, and would generally agree that a President can own interest in foreign companies. However in an effort to avoid clear conflicts of interest or an actual emolument from occurring, it would be wise of them to divest of them. Otherwise a foreign state can use it against them in some way, either to attempt to extort, or to visibly promote it to create the air of conflict. And then the President would be unable to do anything without the taint.

Yes but the principal is the same, no? Somebody in a position of power who has strong influence over decisions that happen outside the context of the free market economy should be restricted from participating in those investable opportunities. Nobody is saying what she is doing is explicitly illegal. But it's abundantly unethical and, imo, a clear abuse of power. Her tone deaf response in this story only adds fuel to the controversy.

mc32 5y ago
Exactly. We have the current example of Senator Wyden who blocked the China Forced Labor bill who received ~$60k in cash from Nike... how is that not quid pro quo?
- jjeaff 5y ago
  I think you oversimplify the situation. That's $60k in public campaign donations by executive employees of Nike. Which is based in Oregon, the state that Wyden represents. Also, $60k isn't that much, considering Wyden usually raises between $4 and $8 million during a reelection year. My guess is that he would be more swayed by the fact that Nike is one of the largest employers in Oregon. Like it or hate it, this is the system we have, I don't see any evidence that Wyden is being bought off any more than any other Senator that accepts campaign donations from special interests (which is all of them).
titzer 5y ago
Foreign leaders staying in the hotel chain of the sitting President is pretty blatant corruption. It was even in "the transcript" if anyone remembers back that far. Pepperidge Farm remembers.
- wk_end 5y ago
  Who are you arguing with? No one is defending Trump here. Just because Trump was corrupt doesn't mean that it's OK for his opponents - who've explicitly called out his corruption - to be corrupt.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Foreign leaders staying in the hotel chain of the sitting President is pretty blatant corruption. That's about the foreign emoluments clause (which already applies to other public officials including Congress), not the Presidential (domestic) emoluments clause, which is about the President getting money or other material benefit other than those legally due to his office from the federal or state government (which was also an issue with Trump's DC hotel, for many reasons, just not “foreign leaders staying there”.)

ithinkso 5y ago

Constitution can be amended but the Congress would have to amend it against their own private interest so of course it will not happen (but should)... the point you're making is moot though

dariusj18 5y ago
Well the Constitution can be amended without Congress via a Constitutional Convention. My point wasn't moot though, it was a direct response to PC which was asking why someone's rhetoric around a literal clause of the Constitution defining the most powerful role in government. A clause that isn't defined for Representatives, whom are not singular in their power, and collectively are given the power to set their own rules. Not to say that a debate cannot be had, but PC was trying to make it seem that there was hypocrisy afoot.

rhino369 5y ago

And the emoluments clause doesn't say POTUS cannot own interest in foreign companies. That is a creative re-interpretation invented in 2016.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dariusj18 5y ago
I'm not sure I've heard that argued, and would generally agree that a President can own interest in foreign companies. However in an effort to avoid clear conflicts of interest or an actual emolument from occurring, it would be wise of them to divest of them. Otherwise a foreign state can use it against them in some way, either to attempt to extort, or to visibly promote it to create the air of conflict. And then the President would be unable to do anything without the taint.