4 ms·

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 marke

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”.)

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”.)