9 ms·

Unlike in Europe and the UK, where such political influence from corporations and the wealthy never happens /s At least in the US we (try) and make donations p

Unlike in Europe and the UK, where such political influence from corporations and the wealthy never happens /s At least in the US we (try) and make donations public. The places where it’s “banned” are black holes.

shadowfox 3y ago
> At least in the US we (try) and make donations public. The places where it’s “banned” are black holes. That is definitely an interesting take. So, is your ideal society one where anybody is allowed to give and take bribes as long as it is public?
- dingusdew 3y ago
  [dead]
- monero-xmr 3y ago
  I think the world is so complex that a politician - especially the sort democracies typically elect - cannot be expected to be an expert in all subjects and things they are supposed to vote on and make rules for. Lacking perfect knowledge, they must rely on outside advice, directly from those affected or indirectly from their assistants and technocrats who advise them. At all points it’s possible to manipulate the outcome. Given that influence and manipulation is impossible to stamp out, and then realizing that some of those that want to influence are some of the richest and most powerful entities on earth, I would personally rather allow lobbying and donations to be legal, but require all of it to be public. That way you can tell who is taking money from who. Otherwise, it’s just the mafia and insiders games all the way up the chain.
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    > Lacking perfect knowledge, they must rely on outside advice, directly from those affected or indirectly from their assistants and technocrats who advise them. There is a huge dufference between “subject matter expert advises lawmaker to vote some way” and “business tycoon hands a bag of money to lawmaker to vote some way.” Somehow, America has equated the two, and considers them equally acceptable.
lordnacho 3y ago
I thought the whole Citizens United thing served to obscure where money was coming from?
- prepend 3y ago
  Citizens united makes it easy to donate any amount of money to political causes. But there’s still some limited visibility into who is funding the PACs.
raincole 3y ago
You logic: 1. In Europe and UK, bribery (Let's not sugercoat it as "lobbying". We all know what it is.) is illegal. So people will just do it secretly. In other words, legislation doesn't prevent bad things, in this case, bribery, from happening. 2. In the US, bribery is legal, but hiding the records is illegal. So people will make it public. In other words, legislation does prvent bad things, in this case, covert bribery, from happening. I guess legislation is just so much more effective in the US.
- lobocinza 3y ago
  IMO both are the same. They will take bribes when they can get away with it. In Brazil lobbying is illegal but prevalent and politicians hardly goes to jail and if they go is only because they where being incovenient to their peers. And voters most of the time are clueless and only care about corruption when the other side is doing it. Government main business is expropriating others wealth and redistributing among themselves and their friends.

shadowfox 3y ago

> At least in the US we (try) and make donations public. The places where it’s “banned” are black holes. That is definitely an interesting take. So, is your ideal society one where anybody is allowed to give and take bribes as long as it is public?

dingusdew 3y ago
[dead]
monero-xmr 3y ago
I think the world is so complex that a politician - especially the sort democracies typically elect - cannot be expected to be an expert in all subjects and things they are supposed to vote on and make rules for. Lacking perfect knowledge, they must rely on outside advice, directly from those affected or indirectly from their assistants and technocrats who advise them. At all points it’s possible to manipulate the outcome. Given that influence and manipulation is impossible to stamp out, and then realizing that some of those that want to influence are some of the richest and most powerful entities on earth, I would personally rather allow lobbying and donations to be legal, but require all of it to be public. That way you can tell who is taking money from who. Otherwise, it’s just the mafia and insiders games all the way up the chain.
- ryandrake 3y ago
  > Lacking perfect knowledge, they must rely on outside advice, directly from those affected or indirectly from their assistants and technocrats who advise them. There is a huge dufference between “subject matter expert advises lawmaker to vote some way” and “business tycoon hands a bag of money to lawmaker to vote some way.” Somehow, America has equated the two, and considers them equally acceptable.

lordnacho 3y ago

I thought the whole Citizens United thing served to obscure where money was coming from?

prepend 3y ago
Citizens united makes it easy to donate any amount of money to political causes. But there’s still some limited visibility into who is funding the PACs.

raincole 3y ago

You logic: 1. In Europe and UK, bribery (Let's not sugercoat it as "lobbying". We all know what it is.) is illegal. So people will just do it secretly. In other words, legislation doesn't prevent bad things, in this case, bribery, from happening. 2. In the US, bribery is legal, but hiding the records is illegal. So people will make it public. In other words, legislation does prvent bad things, in this case, covert bribery, from happening. I guess legislation is just so much more effective in the US.

lobocinza 3y ago
IMO both are the same. They will take bribes when they can get away with it. In Brazil lobbying is illegal but prevalent and politicians hardly goes to jail and if they go is only because they where being incovenient to their peers. And voters most of the time are clueless and only care about corruption when the other side is doing it. Government main business is expropriating others wealth and redistributing among themselves and their friends.