4 ms·

How is the line between lobbying and bribery argued in court? There seems to be a large grey area between the two. This seems like lobbying to me. A corporation

How is the line between lobbying and bribery argued in court? There seems to be a large grey area between the two. This seems like lobbying to me. A corporation gives money to a politician (or party) in return for favourable legislation yet this particular incident is deemed illegal. Does the flow of money have to be more transparent to the public for it to be legal?

jjulius 4y ago
IANAL, this is probably way off, but at a basic level... Lobbying = "Hi, I'm a representative for [large donor]. I'd like to speak with you about how they feel about an upcoming piece of legislation, carefully using my words so that I'm just pushing our position on the issue and hoping you'll 'see our side' and vote in our favor, even though you and I both know what I really mean here." Bribery: "I will give you $[amount] if you vote [this way]."
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  addendum to Lobbying: 4 years pass ... "<Name>! long time no see? oh you're out of office? Great! we have a cushy consulting position you should apply for, you're a shoe in!"
  - didgetmaster 4y ago
    Also..."Hey we are holding a conference and we would love to have you come speak for a half hour at <Big Event>. How does a $100K speaking fee sound to you?"
  - chiefalchemist 4y ago
    Moi? That's more akin to veiled bribery. In the immediate they're promised an extremely lucrative *completely legal* payoff later. There's little actaul work, the pay is ridiculous, expenses covered, children get internships, etc. All legal...if you vote for hamburger today.
  - mysterydip 4y ago
    This, but replace lobbyist -> military contractor politician -> high ranking military officer out of office -> retired from active service and you now know why some contractors seem to continually get ludicrous purchases despite poor performance.
hedora 4y ago
The powers that be have established complicated rules that ensure the line between legal and illegal behavior is nonsensical. It's a competitive moat, but for corrupt politicians.
rayiner 4y ago
Corporations can’t give money to politicians. It’s illegal.
- tptacek 4y ago
  No, but they can and do organize employee-funded PACs, with their company names on them, directed by management at the companies, and those PACs do donate directly to parties, individual candidates, candidate leadership PACs, and party-aligned PACs. So this is a distinction without much of a difference. You basically have never have looked at a campaign general fund receipts report to believe that companies don't donate to candidates. I don't even care about this issue and think it's totally overblown, but I mean, what you said is deeply misleading and we can't just let it stand as a comment.
  - JamesianP 4y ago
    By donate to individual candidates I assume you mean to their campaigns (and subject to limits). Because as the parent poster correctly pointed out, giving money to them personally is illegal. The laws are pretty strict about bribery and candidates can't touch campaign funding for personal use.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      He's technically right: corporations can't donate to candidate general funds or leadership PACs. But he's substantively wrong: corporations obviously do donate to candidate general funds and leadership PACs. They do so by forming employee-funded, management-directed PACs, which can contribute directly. Again: you'll see these in the receipts list of any major candidate, as Rayiner well knows.
      - JamesianP 4y ago
        Being technically right is important when being wrong can land you in prison. This is a story about such a criminal law being enforced, after all. Odd place to be arguing that such laws are meaningless. Here's the law ATT (through their contractor or whatever) violated: https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt%2E+33&ActID=1876&ChapterID=53.&SeqStart=85500000&SeqEnd=86600000 https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=0720... "A person commits bribery when: (a) With intent to influence the performance of any act related to the employment or function of any public officer, public employee, juror or witness, he or she promises or tenders to that person any property or personal advantage which he or she is not authorized by law to accept;"

jjulius 4y ago

IANAL, this is probably way off, but at a basic level... Lobbying = "Hi, I'm a representative for [large donor]. I'd like to speak with you about how they feel about an upcoming piece of legislation, carefully using my words so that I'm just pushing our position on the issue and hoping you'll 'see our side' and vote in our favor, even though you and I both know what I really mean here." Bribery: "I will give you $[amount] if you vote [this way]."

maerF0x0 4y ago
addendum to Lobbying: 4 years pass ... "<Name>! long time no see? oh you're out of office? Great! we have a cushy consulting position you should apply for, you're a shoe in!"
- didgetmaster 4y ago
  Also..."Hey we are holding a conference and we would love to have you come speak for a half hour at <Big Event>. How does a $100K speaking fee sound to you?"
- chiefalchemist 4y ago
  Moi? That's more akin to veiled bribery. In the immediate they're promised an extremely lucrative *completely legal* payoff later. There's little actaul work, the pay is ridiculous, expenses covered, children get internships, etc. All legal...if you vote for hamburger today.
- mysterydip 4y ago
  This, but replace lobbyist -> military contractor politician -> high ranking military officer out of office -> retired from active service and you now know why some contractors seem to continually get ludicrous purchases despite poor performance.

hedora 4y ago

The powers that be have established complicated rules that ensure the line between legal and illegal behavior is nonsensical. It's a competitive moat, but for corrupt politicians.

rayiner 4y ago

Corporations can’t give money to politicians. It’s illegal.

tptacek 4y ago
No, but they can and do organize employee-funded PACs, with their company names on them, directed by management at the companies, and those PACs do donate directly to parties, individual candidates, candidate leadership PACs, and party-aligned PACs. So this is a distinction without much of a difference. You basically have never have looked at a campaign general fund receipts report to believe that companies don't donate to candidates. I don't even care about this issue and think it's totally overblown, but I mean, what you said is deeply misleading and we can't just let it stand as a comment.
- JamesianP 4y ago
  By donate to individual candidates I assume you mean to their campaigns (and subject to limits). Because as the parent poster correctly pointed out, giving money to them personally is illegal. The laws are pretty strict about bribery and candidates can't touch campaign funding for personal use.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    He's technically right: corporations can't donate to candidate general funds or leadership PACs. But he's substantively wrong: corporations obviously do donate to candidate general funds and leadership PACs. They do so by forming employee-funded, management-directed PACs, which can contribute directly. Again: you'll see these in the receipts list of any major candidate, as Rayiner well knows.
    - JamesianP 4y ago
      Being technically right is important when being wrong can land you in prison. This is a story about such a criminal law being enforced, after all. Odd place to be arguing that such laws are meaningless. Here's the law ATT (through their contractor or whatever) violated: https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt%2E+33&ActID=1876&ChapterID=53.&SeqStart=85500000&SeqEnd=86600000 https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=0720... "A person commits bribery when: (a) With intent to influence the performance of any act related to the employment or function of any public officer, public employee, juror or witness, he or she promises or tenders to that person any property or personal advantage which he or she is not authorized by law to accept;"