5 ms·
> "Bribing" has a specific meaning, which involves quid quo pro, and "corporations being able to spend money on political ads" is nowhere near that. Market dy
by jjoonathan 3y ago
> "Bribing" has a specific meaning, which involves quid quo pro, and "corporations being able to spend money on political ads" is nowhere near that.
Market dynamics of supply and demand bridge this gap with the same vigor they bring to any other kind of "investment."
Politicians need monetary support, they figure out what kinds of positions are likely to secure that support, they adopt those positions, and the support appears. Do they meet with corporate executives in the graveyard at midnight and sign a contract with blood squeezed from the homeless? No, but it's a bit weird to point to the absence of silly midnight rituals as exonerating evidence when it's pretty clear that the exchange happens without the need for any such nonsense.
- gruez 3y agoI'm not claiming that activities that were allowed by the ruling has no influence on politicians, just that "legalised bribery" is objectively false. You might argue that the two are kinda the same thing, so equating them for rhetorical effect is fine, but this presents a problem: what the supreme court actually legalizes bribery? What would we call it then? We already established that they "legalized bribery", so we can't say that again.
- jjoonathan 3y agoOh, it's not legalized bribery, it's mandatory bribery. The need to finance a campaign means that every option must be approved by wealthy interests before the people are even allowed to see the options. Call it what you will. Playing with definitions does not fix the problem.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]