5 ms·

> You appear to misunderstand Citizens United You appear to misunderstand how the world actually works if you think that there is a substantive difference betw

by lisper 3y ago

> You appear to misunderstand Citizens United You appear to misunderstand how the world actually works if you think that there is a substantive difference between "independent expenditures" and "direct campaign contributions." Money is fungible. (Just out of curiosity, do you think Clarence Thomas is corrupt?) > I don't run for office. Not all humans are corrupt. That's true. But if you are not "corrupt" on your definition, you will never win a contested election. I don't like it any more than you do, but that's the world we currently live in.

lapcat 3y ago
> You appear to misunderstand how the world actually works if you think that there is a substantive difference between "independent expenditures" and "direct campaign contributions." Money is fungible. Aside from allowing vastly more money into the process, which is of course bad in itself, how do you think Citizens United changed or changes the nature of the corruption of individual politicians? As I mentioned, Biden joined the US Senate in 1973, decades before Citizens United. Legalized bribery in the form of campaign contributions has been around forever. Unless you're claiming, implausibly, that politicians somehow weren't corrupted by campaign contributions until 2010, I'm unclear why Citizens United is relevant to our (semantic?) disagreement. > Just out of curiosity, do you think Clarence Thomas is corrupt? Deeply. > But if you are not "corrupt" on your definition, you will never win a contested election. I don't like it any more than you do, but that's the world we currently live in. Agreed. Perhaps the only real difference here is that I'm willing to admit the unfortunate, inconvenient truth that most of our representatives are corrupt. It feels to me like there's a kind of excuse being given here, like, "You have to be corrupt in order to win, so it's not truly corruption". But I don't buy that. You certainly have to raise money to win, but there are different ways of going about that, and also different ways to handle it after you've raised the funds and won the election. There's a common refrain among Democrats that the Democratic politicians are always just doing the best they can under the political circumstances, they mean well, but they can't actually do significant things to help the people they represent, because of... reasons >mumble< >mumble<. And I don't believe that junk for a second. Politics tends to attract a certain type of ladder-climber who is willing to throw away any principles, if they had any principles in the first place, to achieve power and notoriety. It's not necessarily a route to great financial fortune (though sometimes it can be after leaving office, see for example Bill Clinton), but it's a route to great power, and money is power anyway, so those are just two different ways of achieving fundamentally the same goal.
- lisper 3y ago
  There are people who profess to believe that taxation is theft. Even if I grant for the sake of argument that their position has merit (it doesn't, but I'm willing to suspend disbelief) I still think there is a worthwhile distinction to be made between being held up at gunpoint in a dark alley and being audited by the IRS. Likewise, there are people like you who profess to believe that acting in the interests of campaign donors is corruption. Even if I grant for the sake of argument that their position has merit (and it very well might) I still think there is a worthwhile distinction to be made between voting for a bill because someone donated to your campaign, and voting for a bill because someone flew you to their hunting lodge in their private jet. There is a broad range of activities that can be labelled "corruption" but using the same word for all of them means intentionally discarding important information and nuance. There is a line -- not a sharp one, but a line nonetheless -- between "corruption" that is acceptable, even necessary, under our current system, and "corruption" that is not, and I choose to reserve the word "corruption", with its pejorative implications, for the latter and use some other word to refer to the former. There isn't really a good word for the former kind of "corruption" because it's not corruption, it's just the Way Things Work, for better or for worse. But fine, if you insist, I will refer to the former as "type 1 corruption" and the latter as "type 2 corruption". Type 1 corruption may be distasteful, but it is clearly legal. Type 2 corruption is nominally illegal, but rarely prosecuted, in no small measure because the line between the two is blurry and it's hard to prove that a given act was in fact type 2 corruption. This has gotten even harder since Citizens United because it moved the line that delineates the two kinds of corruption, making things that were once unacceptable now acceptable or even necessary. AFAICT, Joe Biden has never engaged in type 2 corruption, which IMHO is the kind that matters. I don't like type 1 corruption any more than you do, but the only way to get rid of it is to change the law, not to cast aspersions on those who engage in it -- because that includes every democratically elected official in the country.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > "corruption" that is acceptable, even necessary, under our current system > There isn't really a good word for the former kind of "corruption" because it's not corruption, it's just the Way Things Work > the only way to get rid of it is to change the law, not to cast aspersions on those who engage in it See, this is exactly what I meant when I said, "It feels to me like there's a kind of excuse being given here, like, You have to be corrupt in order to win, so it's not truly corruption." I also said, "I don't buy that." In fact I vehemently disagree. I don't actually think that money in politics corrupts politicians as much as politics appeals to the corruptible, i.e., the "type of ladder-climber" that I mentioned. It's possible to be "courageous" (i.e., not corrupt) in politics, as long as you care more about your principles than you do about election and especially reelection. "Type 1 corruption", as you call it, is a deliberate choice. Your same argument could be made about business in general, that everyone in business must be unethical, because unethical businesspeople are more likely to succeed. But empirically it's untrue that everyone in business is unethical. Although there are indeed many, too many in business who are unethical, and perhaps they're more successful on average, there are also many people in business who refuse to throw out their principles for the sake of more cash. There are good people in the business world. What differentiates politics, in large part, is that it's not a free, competitive market; rather, it's a duopoly. Thus, if you want to be part of one of the two major parties, who are already corrupted by money, you've got to play along with the team, join the perverse game. Otherwise they'll crush you like a bug. Perhaps you could make some excuses for the minor party politicians, but there are no excuses for the leaders of the parties. They're the ringleaders of the whole corrupt operation. There's a reason that our elections are so close, and that so many potential voters choose to sit them out entirely every cycle: the non-partisans don't see much practical difference between the two parties. There's a difference in rhetoric, but as far as taking significant action to help the majority of people, both parties do very little. Voters are not given the option of making big progress in solving societal problems; it's just a continual back-and-forth of replacing one party with the other in order to stop the latest horror. The electorate doesn't have much if any real hope, despite the empty promises of "hope" from the latest charismatic candidates; we've heard that rhetoric before and been disappointed. The only thing the parties offer is scaremongering: the other party is worse! Which may be true, but it's tiring, repetitive. In the end, the two parties can't help the public because they don't really want to help the public; above all, they want to help themselves to power and prestige. One of the dirty secrets is that powerful politicians love hobnobbing with wealthy business leaders. They don't really have to be forced to take the campaign contributions. It's one big, happy, exclusive, incestuous social club, with a revolving door between the public sector and the private sector. > This has gotten even harder since Citizens United because it moved the line that delineates the two kinds of corruption, making things that were once unacceptable now acceptable or even necessary. I'm not buying this. I've seen no evidence whatsoever that politicians were "holding back" in their level of "type 1" corruption before Citizens United, and it's not clear how Citizens United is relevant to "type 2" corruption. > that includes every democratically elected official in the country. I wouldn't go that far. I've seem some pretty good people. Though they usually don't ascend to the upper echelons of national politics.

by lisper 3y ago

lapcat 3y ago

> You appear to misunderstand how the world actually works if you think that there is a substantive difference between "independent expenditures" and "direct campaign contributions." Money is fungible. Aside from allowing vastly more money into the process, which is of course bad in itself, how do you think Citizens United changed or changes the nature of the corruption of individual politicians? As I mentioned, Biden joined the US Senate in 1973, decades before Citizens United. Legalized bribery in the form of campaign contributions has been around forever. Unless you're claiming, implausibly, that politicians somehow weren't corrupted by campaign contributions until 2010, I'm unclear why Citizens United is relevant to our (semantic?) disagreement. > Just out of curiosity, do you think Clarence Thomas is corrupt? Deeply. > But if you are not "corrupt" on your definition, you will never win a contested election. I don't like it any more than you do, but that's the world we currently live in. Agreed. Perhaps the only real difference here is that I'm willing to admit the unfortunate, inconvenient truth that most of our representatives are corrupt. It feels to me like there's a kind of excuse being given here, like, "You have to be corrupt in order to win, so it's not truly corruption". But I don't buy that. You certainly have to raise money to win, but there are different ways of going about that, and also different ways to handle it after you've raised the funds and won the election. There's a common refrain among Democrats that the Democratic politicians are always just doing the best they can under the political circumstances, they mean well, but they can't actually do significant things to help the people they represent, because of... reasons >mumble< >mumble<. And I don't believe that junk for a second. Politics tends to attract a certain type of ladder-climber who is willing to throw away any principles, if they had any principles in the first place, to achieve power and notoriety. It's not necessarily a route to great financial fortune (though sometimes it can be after leaving office, see for example Bill Clinton), but it's a route to great power, and money is power anyway, so those are just two different ways of achieving fundamentally the same goal.

lisper 3y ago
There are people who profess to believe that taxation is theft. Even if I grant for the sake of argument that their position has merit (it doesn't, but I'm willing to suspend disbelief) I still think there is a worthwhile distinction to be made between being held up at gunpoint in a dark alley and being audited by the IRS. Likewise, there are people like you who profess to believe that acting in the interests of campaign donors is corruption. Even if I grant for the sake of argument that their position has merit (and it very well might) I still think there is a worthwhile distinction to be made between voting for a bill because someone donated to your campaign, and voting for a bill because someone flew you to their hunting lodge in their private jet. There is a broad range of activities that can be labelled "corruption" but using the same word for all of them means intentionally discarding important information and nuance. There is a line -- not a sharp one, but a line nonetheless -- between "corruption" that is acceptable, even necessary, under our current system, and "corruption" that is not, and I choose to reserve the word "corruption", with its pejorative implications, for the latter and use some other word to refer to the former. There isn't really a good word for the former kind of "corruption" because it's not corruption, it's just the Way Things Work, for better or for worse. But fine, if you insist, I will refer to the former as "type 1 corruption" and the latter as "type 2 corruption". Type 1 corruption may be distasteful, but it is clearly legal. Type 2 corruption is nominally illegal, but rarely prosecuted, in no small measure because the line between the two is blurry and it's hard to prove that a given act was in fact type 2 corruption. This has gotten even harder since Citizens United because it moved the line that delineates the two kinds of corruption, making things that were once unacceptable now acceptable or even necessary. AFAICT, Joe Biden has never engaged in type 2 corruption, which IMHO is the kind that matters. I don't like type 1 corruption any more than you do, but the only way to get rid of it is to change the law, not to cast aspersions on those who engage in it -- because that includes every democratically elected official in the country.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > "corruption" that is acceptable, even necessary, under our current system > There isn't really a good word for the former kind of "corruption" because it's not corruption, it's just the Way Things Work > the only way to get rid of it is to change the law, not to cast aspersions on those who engage in it See, this is exactly what I meant when I said, "It feels to me like there's a kind of excuse being given here, like, You have to be corrupt in order to win, so it's not truly corruption." I also said, "I don't buy that." In fact I vehemently disagree. I don't actually think that money in politics corrupts politicians as much as politics appeals to the corruptible, i.e., the "type of ladder-climber" that I mentioned. It's possible to be "courageous" (i.e., not corrupt) in politics, as long as you care more about your principles than you do about election and especially reelection. "Type 1 corruption", as you call it, is a deliberate choice. Your same argument could be made about business in general, that everyone in business must be unethical, because unethical businesspeople are more likely to succeed. But empirically it's untrue that everyone in business is unethical. Although there are indeed many, too many in business who are unethical, and perhaps they're more successful on average, there are also many people in business who refuse to throw out their principles for the sake of more cash. There are good people in the business world. What differentiates politics, in large part, is that it's not a free, competitive market; rather, it's a duopoly. Thus, if you want to be part of one of the two major parties, who are already corrupted by money, you've got to play along with the team, join the perverse game. Otherwise they'll crush you like a bug. Perhaps you could make some excuses for the minor party politicians, but there are no excuses for the leaders of the parties. They're the ringleaders of the whole corrupt operation. There's a reason that our elections are so close, and that so many potential voters choose to sit them out entirely every cycle: the non-partisans don't see much practical difference between the two parties. There's a difference in rhetoric, but as far as taking significant action to help the majority of people, both parties do very little. Voters are not given the option of making big progress in solving societal problems; it's just a continual back-and-forth of replacing one party with the other in order to stop the latest horror. The electorate doesn't have much if any real hope, despite the empty promises of "hope" from the latest charismatic candidates; we've heard that rhetoric before and been disappointed. The only thing the parties offer is scaremongering: the other party is worse! Which may be true, but it's tiring, repetitive. In the end, the two parties can't help the public because they don't really want to help the public; above all, they want to help themselves to power and prestige. One of the dirty secrets is that powerful politicians love hobnobbing with wealthy business leaders. They don't really have to be forced to take the campaign contributions. It's one big, happy, exclusive, incestuous social club, with a revolving door between the public sector and the private sector. > This has gotten even harder since Citizens United because it moved the line that delineates the two kinds of corruption, making things that were once unacceptable now acceptable or even necessary. I'm not buying this. I've seen no evidence whatsoever that politicians were "holding back" in their level of "type 1" corruption before Citizens United, and it's not clear how Citizens United is relevant to "type 2" corruption. > that includes every democratically elected official in the country. I wouldn't go that far. I've seem some pretty good people. Though they usually don't ascend to the upper echelons of national politics.