6 ms·

isn't this kind of thing common in US politics? what makes this specifically actionable?

bdw5204 4y ago
If the bribe is paid as a "campaign contribution" to a politician or to a group that runs ads to get a politician elected, it is "free speech" according to SCOTUS in Citizens United v. FEC. If it is paid directly to a politician or to a politician's friend, it is illegal bribery. It would also be perfectly legal to hire a politician or regulator who advanced your interests once he's no longer in office. There is, in fact, a revolving door between many industries and the agencies that regulate them. But you can't explicitly promise these individuals a job while they're still in office or you committed illegal bribery. A politician also can't sell a Senate appointment (as the governor of Illinois infamously tried to do after Obama was elected president) but he can give it to one of his political allies as a favor and reasonably expect that the favor will be repaid in the future. Of course, these differences aren't particularly meaningful in reality but they're very important under the law and anybody who is stupid enough to execute their bribes the wrong way will probably be punished for bribery even though it would have been perfectly legal if they'd done it the right way.
- dvt 4y ago
  This is an incredibly reductive take. Campaign contributions are carefully monitored. So you can't, like, buy yourself a house in Martha's Vineyard with campaign contributions. In fact, it's illegal for a politician to even be in contact with a super PAC (even though they may be campaigning for them). There have been many lawsuits that have settled this. Citizens United is problematic not because "money is free speech" (which, frankly, it is, as we live in a capitalist society) but rather because corporations (specifically when donating to Super PACs) have no caps on donation sizes. Fun fact: that money is not taxable income, by the way. So they can (in a roundabout way) essentially fill a friendly politician's coffers "for free."
  - maerF0x0 4y ago
    And that's why Citizens united should have focused on citizens, not corporations. Corporations have not votes. Citizens do. A step forward could be to bar corporations from any action in the voting process (their constituent citizens like employees, owners, board etc can do what they wish as citizens, if they're citizens) .
  - Zircom 4y ago
    This is an incredibly naive take. There's countless ways and examples of how to get campaign funds into your own pocket. Speaking fees, books, your campaign hiring family members or friends, buying goods and services for your campaign from your own companies, etc. It happens all the time.
    - dvt 4y ago
      > There's countless ways and examples of how to get campaign funds into your own pocket. I mean, while this is technically true, it's also a bit silly to think it's untraceable--many people that attempt to do this get in trouble for it[1]. As someone that owns a Super PAC, while I don't consider myself some kind of absolute authority, I do know some of the regulatory hurdles one must go through. I get it, you watched John Oliver do his little song and dance, but reality is a bit more complicated. [1] Just to cite a famous-ish case: read about Conservative Strikeforce Super PAC.
      - Zircom 4y ago
        If you could point to exactly where I said it was untraceable or that people don't get caught doing it....? Yeah. Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm fully aware it's by no means a risk free or foolproof venture, but you're the one being silly if you think the amount of cases where people are caught committing crimes is anything but a small percentage of people actually committing said crimes, especially white collar crimes like this. They're just the ones that were unlucky and/or not smart enough to get away with it. And honestly you're being more than a bit condescending and not really arguing in good faith, so not interested in continuing this conversation. You have a nice day though :)
dvt 4y ago
Are you trying to say that bribery is common in US politics? I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but no, bribery is not common nor is it legal. People like to meme about lobbyists and PACs and all that. And, while it may be true that the system might need tweaks, all of that money is required to be reported through the FEC in the case of campaign contributions, or via D-2 forms in the case of lobbying. The problem with under-the-table bribes is that you can't "follow the money" so to speak.
- noworriesnate 4y ago
  Lobbying is legalized bribery, and it's not just companies doing the lobbying/bribing, it's foreign countries doing it as well[1]. Also, lobbyists don't just influence policy, they also influence who gets elected in the first place[2]. The most common issue that lobbyist money is spent on has to do with the appropriating money from the federal budget[3], so in many cases it's likely that the money spent lobbying is used to redirect taxpayer funds to pay for more lobbying. In other words lobbying is so corrupt that it's easy for any citizen to see the corruption--yet people say, "Nah, it's fine because it's legal." This is blatantly anti-democratic. It's a huge mess of conflicts of interest. It should not be legal. [1] https://www.opensecrets.org/fara https://www.opensecrets.org/fara [2] https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-recipients https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-recipients [3] https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-issues https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-issues
  - crazygringo 4y ago
    > Lobbying is legalized bribery That's an unhelpful take. Bribery as defined by law is inherently illegal, and lobbying is defined by law as legal, so legalized bribery is nonsensical. It can't exist. On the other hand, there are certainly arguments to be made for why lobbying can feel anti-democratic. But they come smack up against rights to freedom of speech, association, etc. It's incredibly difficult to draw the lines here for what is "democratic" and "anti-democratic", where "legitimate democratic politics" turns into "corruption". All of democracy is about individuals and groups trying to influence candidates and politicians, and providing or withholding support to do so, and candidates and politicians actively seeking support of individuals and groups via policy. Fortunately, we've decided that some lines are relatively easy to draw: politicians can solicit/receive contributions for campaigns, but not personally. But what you're arguing against doesn't have any kind of clear line. Federal money and tax breaks go to lots of different groups, and lots of different groups lobby. It's hard to see how that either of those should be illegal, or how tying them together could be made illegal, without the end result being even more anti-democratic.

If the bribe is paid as a "campaign contribution" to a politician or to a group that runs ads to get a politician elected, it is "free speech" according to SCOTUS in Citizens United v. FEC. If it is paid directly to a politician or to a politician's friend, it is illegal bribery. It would also be perfectly legal to hire a politician or regulator who advanced your interests once he's no longer in office. There is, in fact, a revolving door between many industries and the agencies that regulate them. But you can't explicitly promise these individuals a job while they're still in office or you committed illegal bribery. A politician also can't sell a Senate appointment (as the governor of Illinois infamously tried to do after Obama was elected president) but he can give it to one of his political allies as a favor and reasonably expect that the favor will be repaid in the future. Of course, these differences aren't particularly meaningful in reality but they're very important under the law and anybody who is stupid enough to execute their bribes the wrong way will probably be punished for bribery even though it would have been perfectly legal if they'd done it the right way.

dvt 4y ago
This is an incredibly reductive take. Campaign contributions are carefully monitored. So you can't, like, buy yourself a house in Martha's Vineyard with campaign contributions. In fact, it's illegal for a politician to even be in contact with a super PAC (even though they may be campaigning for them). There have been many lawsuits that have settled this. Citizens United is problematic not because "money is free speech" (which, frankly, it is, as we live in a capitalist society) but rather because corporations (specifically when donating to Super PACs) have no caps on donation sizes. Fun fact: that money is not taxable income, by the way. So they can (in a roundabout way) essentially fill a friendly politician's coffers "for free."
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  And that's why Citizens united should have focused on citizens, not corporations. Corporations have not votes. Citizens do. A step forward could be to bar corporations from any action in the voting process (their constituent citizens like employees, owners, board etc can do what they wish as citizens, if they're citizens) .
- Zircom 4y ago
  This is an incredibly naive take. There's countless ways and examples of how to get campaign funds into your own pocket. Speaking fees, books, your campaign hiring family members or friends, buying goods and services for your campaign from your own companies, etc. It happens all the time.
  - dvt 4y ago
    > There's countless ways and examples of how to get campaign funds into your own pocket. I mean, while this is technically true, it's also a bit silly to think it's untraceable--many people that attempt to do this get in trouble for it[1]. As someone that owns a Super PAC, while I don't consider myself some kind of absolute authority, I do know some of the regulatory hurdles one must go through. I get it, you watched John Oliver do his little song and dance, but reality is a bit more complicated. [1] Just to cite a famous-ish case: read about Conservative Strikeforce Super PAC.
    - Zircom 4y ago
      If you could point to exactly where I said it was untraceable or that people don't get caught doing it....? Yeah. Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm fully aware it's by no means a risk free or foolproof venture, but you're the one being silly if you think the amount of cases where people are caught committing crimes is anything but a small percentage of people actually committing said crimes, especially white collar crimes like this. They're just the ones that were unlucky and/or not smart enough to get away with it. And honestly you're being more than a bit condescending and not really arguing in good faith, so not interested in continuing this conversation. You have a nice day though :)

dvt 4y ago

Are you trying to say that bribery is common in US politics? I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but no, bribery is not common nor is it legal. People like to meme about lobbyists and PACs and all that. And, while it may be true that the system might need tweaks, all of that money is required to be reported through the FEC in the case of campaign contributions, or via D-2 forms in the case of lobbying. The problem with under-the-table bribes is that you can't "follow the money" so to speak.

noworriesnate 4y ago
Lobbying is legalized bribery, and it's not just companies doing the lobbying/bribing, it's foreign countries doing it as well[1]. Also, lobbyists don't just influence policy, they also influence who gets elected in the first place[2]. The most common issue that lobbyist money is spent on has to do with the appropriating money from the federal budget[3], so in many cases it's likely that the money spent lobbying is used to redirect taxpayer funds to pay for more lobbying. In other words lobbying is so corrupt that it's easy for any citizen to see the corruption--yet people say, "Nah, it's fine because it's legal." This is blatantly anti-democratic. It's a huge mess of conflicts of interest. It should not be legal. [1] https://www.opensecrets.org/fara https://www.opensecrets.org/fara [2] https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-recipients https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-recipients [3] https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-issues https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-issues
- crazygringo 4y ago
  > Lobbying is legalized bribery That's an unhelpful take. Bribery as defined by law is inherently illegal, and lobbying is defined by law as legal, so legalized bribery is nonsensical. It can't exist. On the other hand, there are certainly arguments to be made for why lobbying can feel anti-democratic. But they come smack up against rights to freedom of speech, association, etc. It's incredibly difficult to draw the lines here for what is "democratic" and "anti-democratic", where "legitimate democratic politics" turns into "corruption". All of democracy is about individuals and groups trying to influence candidates and politicians, and providing or withholding support to do so, and candidates and politicians actively seeking support of individuals and groups via policy. Fortunately, we've decided that some lines are relatively easy to draw: politicians can solicit/receive contributions for campaigns, but not personally. But what you're arguing against doesn't have any kind of clear line. Federal money and tax breaks go to lots of different groups, and lots of different groups lobby. It's hard to see how that either of those should be illegal, or how tying them together could be made illegal, without the end result being even more anti-democratic.