6 ms·
Funny how because these are "donation" and "lobbying" but not "bribe" there is no consequence for the receiving party and also no recuperation of the money.
by ncann 3y ago
Funny how because these are "donation" and "lobbying" but not "bribe" there is no consequence for the receiving party and also no recuperation of the money.
- crazygringo 3y agoIt's quite common for politicians to return money that is stolen/foreign/otherwise when they find out. Sometimes because the law requires it, but also if they don't, the attack ad for their opponent writes itself. Although obviously it depends on how much time has passed and whether the money should already be considered "spent". Because even if the politician wants to repay it, new donors want their money going to re-election activities, not going to repay FTX. After a period of time, you might as well be asking the television stations to return the money they received for running the campaign ads, which... isn't gonna happen.
- lacrimacida 3y ago> Because even if the politician wants to repay it, new donors want their money going to re-election activities, not going to repay FTX. After a period of time, you might as well be asking the television stations to return the money they received for running the campaign ads, which... isn't gonna happen. Politicians should be made to pay out of their own pockets or have an insurance for this type of situation.
- wongarsu 3y ago> Politicians should be made to pay out of their own pockets We don't want to create a system where only the rich can afford to be politicians ... or at least we don't want to make that any worse than it already is
- lacrimacida 3y agoWell, they should know their sources and assume some responsibility, which they mostly lack these days.
- threeseed 3y agoEasy to say it now but there was a period there when FTX was a reputable company. But I would be all for labelling the entire crypto industry as illegal and ensuring any donations are immediately returned. Maybe just to be safe we should add anything AI related to the list as well.
- l33t7332273 3y agoWould that make it worse? The median net worth in the senate is north of 40 million.
- newaccount74 3y ago> Politicians should be made to pay out of their own pockets or have an insurance for this type of situation. Why stop at politicians, though? Shouldn't everyone who accepts large sums of money be held accountable if it turns out the money was stolen? At least to some degree?
- hunson_abadeer 3y agoDoes this include line employees who worked at Google or Facebook or Microsoft if the company is found liable for doing something sketchy? The sums sure are substantial. You can argue they know their employer was no angel, too. OK to claw back paychecks, or do we draw the line somewhere closer to actually participating in a criminal act?
- BoxFour 3y agoDoes that not hold true at present? As a straightforward instance that arises periodically, if a bank were to erroneously deposit funds into your account you’re under obligation to return the funds.
- tcmart14 3y agoI think it depends on what we mean by 'held accountable.' If it means, make best effort to return the money sure. If it means more than that, probably not. If someone robbed a bank, evaded the police and donated all that money to the Salvation Army in the next county, the Salvation Army has no way of knowing the money was stolen. So the only fair thing to expect the Salvation Army to do in this situation is, make a best effort to return what they can.
- snickerbockers 3y agoEven so, the punishment for most crimes is more severe than merely reversing the effects of the crime.
- BoxFour 3y agoAccepting illegitimate funds without awareness doesn't appear to be a criminal offense, based on my understanding (short of falling afoul of money laundering). The punishment typically just involves returning the funds. Unless there's compelling evidence to definitively demonstrate their awareness of the funds' misappropriated source, it seems challenging to establish grounds for substantial punitive action in this situation.
- preommr 3y ago> but also if they don't, the attack ad for their opponent writes itself. Does this even matter anymore? Seems like people are so tribal that they'll vote for their party no matter what, combined with lots of voter apathy makes it seem like it doesn't matter.
- BoxFour 3y agoYour political opponent may very well be someone from your own party.
- reaperducer 3y agoDoes this even matter anymore? Seems like people are so tribal that they'll vote for their party no matter what, combined with lots of voter apathy makes it seem like it doesn't matter. If that was true, there would be no such thing as swing states.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- harry8 3y ago> you might as well be asking the television stations to return the money they received for running the campaign ads, which... isn't gonna happen. The PACs should have to return it and if they can't they're declared bankrupt and everyone associated with running them should be barred for 10 years from involvement in political donations in all forms. Why are PACs lawless relative to the rest of us, do you think?
- duxup 3y agoI remember someone making out checks to political campaigns from various horrible organizations as a bit of a stunt. I was surprised how many returned the checks.
- bb88 3y agoI suspect there will be pressure to return the money, particularly if it was through straw donors, lest anyone be associated with taking dirty, dirty money from a criminal. 100M isn't that much money for political campaigns in 2023.
- generationP 3y agoStupid question: Doesn't a (social or legal) norm to return money donated by crooks make politicians more willing to sweep their donors' misdeeds under the rug (and push judges to do the same), in order to avoid having to justify themselves?
- oh_you 3y ago[dead]
- BoxFour 3y agoPossibly, but the risk appears substantial for a relatively modest payoff. If their guilt is glaringly apparent and your stance is interpreted as supportive, the blowback could be even more detrimental compared to promptly creating distance and professing unawareness of their wrongdoing, genuine or not. The level of risk seems considerably high for an amount of money that, in the realm of campaign contributions, isn't substantial.
- bb88 3y agoWorse, if the money is dirty, it might give prosecutors a reason to start investigating your campaign. Many federal prosecutors are more than eager to make their name in the Justice Department by taking down a prominent public figure.
- skybrian 3y agoI don't know how it works, but bankruptcy law seems a little different? Maybe the company's new management (in bankruptcy) will try to get it back? How far back can a bankruptcy court go with clawbacks?
- delfinom 3y agoBiggest success of the US oligarchy is to convince the general population that lobbying is not bribery.
- edgyquant 3y agoConsidering this is a common belief, it’s hard to agree they’ve convinced anyone.
- andrewmutz 3y agoHave you been to a country that has actual corruption?
- ratsmack 3y agoYou say that as if the US is free of corruption.
- yieldcrv 3y agoI have, I find it just as nuanced as the US system I was expecting wheelbarrows of cash not having to set up a foundation!
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Melting_Harps 3y ago> Have you been to a country that has actual corruption? Absolutely, I lived in E. Europe for a significant amount of time; and I almost respect them more for making it as obvious as they do. At least there isn't an air of goaded legitimacy, and everyone knows that if you just pay the bribe you can just go and live your life on as normal. Whereas in the US you are pressured to pretend it's not all that, and that questioning such a system makes you a heretic of the best system ever devised. Seriously, it's pathetic and I just don't have the patience anymore; this is exactly what happens when Corps, Banks and Wall Street lobby to create legislation that favors them.
- 3y ago
- maximinus_thrax 3y agoThe 'bribe vs donation/lobbying' line in popular culture is the former iron curtain borders.
- downWidOutaFite 3y agoIn Citizens United our wise Supreme Court enshrined bribery as a fundamental right. No law can be passed to stop it.
- markdown 3y agoCalled a right in the US, but when it happens somewhere else, particularly in developing nations, it's called bribery and the govt and politicians called corrupt.
- threeseed 3y agoNo the two are seperate concerns. Lobbying/donations are a fundamental part of governance in almost all countries. Bribery is illegal in almost all countries but enforcement is mixed.
- markdown 3y agoThat's the illusion you've been sold. Semantics. You give someone with political power money in order to buy their support and/or influence the way they spend government money/efforts. That's what bribery is. That's what lobbying is.
- kemotep 3y agoJohn Stewart advocating for 9/11 first responders or you calling your Senator to tell them to support or oppose a bill would then be called what? That technically would be lobbying but you define that was also bribery.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- markdown 3y ago> John Stewart advocating for 9/11 first responders or you calling your Senator to tell them to support or oppose a bill would then be called what? That's lobbying. Jon Stewart supporting politician X with $1M for his re-election campaign in exchange for a 9/11 bill... that would be bribery. But in the US, this bribery is called lobbying.
- bboygravity 3y agoI love the timing of this: Sam is out on bail for the entire thing, basically living his life with 0 consequence for many many months. Then one day the bribe money is under scruteny, this hits the news and within less than a day he's in actual jail for the first time.
- peter422 3y agoI'm pretty confident the bribe money was under scrutiny the entire time (see campaign finance charges), and his bail was revoked for unrelated reasons.
- ethanbond 3y agoThe donations have been a central part of the story since day one. Are you suggesting that They made him leak a witness’s diary so they could arrest him for witness tampering? Sad to see this conspiracy stuff leaking into HN. Unfortunately I need to make fun of this wildly misinformed cruft to help prevent it taking root here.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ergocoder 3y agoIt is not a bribe because it is legal technically.