8 ms·

Musk spent something like 256M and converted that into a 50+ billion payday after the election, and now will enjoy full regulatory capture. Our elections and p

Musk spent something like 256M and converted that into a 50+ billion payday after the election, and now will enjoy full regulatory capture. Our elections and politicians aren't just for sale, they're so cheap it's financially irresponsible not to buy them.

quantified 2y ago
Which makes it a clear business decision. Is a company derelict in its fiduciary duties if it doesn't buy them?
- mullingitover 2y ago
  Yes, when corruption is legal everyone is forced into it. This is sort of my point. In the US we have the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act which forbids US companies from engaging in corruption in foreign countries even if it's common in those countries. There used to be something similar within the US for elections, but the Supreme Court overturned this in the Citizens United decision. The wickedness in that decision is that there's no way out of it other than taking a generation to methodically stack the court (which is how that decision was made possible in the first place) or pass an amendment. Both of those strategies are prevented by the corrupt politics that the decision enabled.
elmerfud 2y ago
You're absolutely correct but this isn't a new phenomenon this has been the way politics has been for as long as anyone can remember. Especially at the federal level. I think everyone's open to ideas to fix it but the problem is those who need to fix it are the politicians who are getting the bribes from the companies. Because it's so easy to get the electorate distracted by issues that don't really divide people but sound very divisive how do you get this really fixed? Look at both sides and the issues they scream at each other about most of them are insignificant or only matter at a local level and not a federal level. Most of them don't truly divide the people cuz most people would come to some sort of a reasonable agreement on them. Politicians stoke the flames because when you're focused on the fact that your neighbor is evil for some trivial thing that you have a different opinion on you'll never realize the real problem is the politicians taking the bribes from all of it.
- bcrl 2y ago
  This is not the case in quite a few other countries that have significant limitations on corporate donations to political candidates and parties, but then most other western democracies don't have their entire political system paralyzed by extreme Gerrymandered electoral boundaries. The sad part is that people forget that wasn't always the case in the US.
- acdha 2y ago
  > You're absolutely correct but this isn't a new phenomenon this has been the way politics has been for as long as anyone can remember. There’s some truth in this but let’s not pretend the scope and magnitude haven’t expanded a lot. You can argue that regulators should have been stricter but Boeing’s CEO wasn’t co-presidenting during the 737-MAX crisis, neither was Ford’s during the Explorer or Pinto era, etc. – and those people had to think seriously about prosecution whereas what we’re seeing now has the sanction of being above the law. Saying it’s always been like that is too close to saying we can’t expect better for my tastes.

quantified 2y ago

Which makes it a clear business decision. Is a company derelict in its fiduciary duties if it doesn't buy them?

mullingitover 2y ago
Yes, when corruption is legal everyone is forced into it. This is sort of my point. In the US we have the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act which forbids US companies from engaging in corruption in foreign countries even if it's common in those countries. There used to be something similar within the US for elections, but the Supreme Court overturned this in the Citizens United decision. The wickedness in that decision is that there's no way out of it other than taking a generation to methodically stack the court (which is how that decision was made possible in the first place) or pass an amendment. Both of those strategies are prevented by the corrupt politics that the decision enabled.

elmerfud 2y ago

You're absolutely correct but this isn't a new phenomenon this has been the way politics has been for as long as anyone can remember. Especially at the federal level. I think everyone's open to ideas to fix it but the problem is those who need to fix it are the politicians who are getting the bribes from the companies. Because it's so easy to get the electorate distracted by issues that don't really divide people but sound very divisive how do you get this really fixed? Look at both sides and the issues they scream at each other about most of them are insignificant or only matter at a local level and not a federal level. Most of them don't truly divide the people cuz most people would come to some sort of a reasonable agreement on them. Politicians stoke the flames because when you're focused on the fact that your neighbor is evil for some trivial thing that you have a different opinion on you'll never realize the real problem is the politicians taking the bribes from all of it.

bcrl 2y ago
This is not the case in quite a few other countries that have significant limitations on corporate donations to political candidates and parties, but then most other western democracies don't have their entire political system paralyzed by extreme Gerrymandered electoral boundaries. The sad part is that people forget that wasn't always the case in the US.
acdha 2y ago
> You're absolutely correct but this isn't a new phenomenon this has been the way politics has been for as long as anyone can remember. There’s some truth in this but let’s not pretend the scope and magnitude haven’t expanded a lot. You can argue that regulators should have been stricter but Boeing’s CEO wasn’t co-presidenting during the 737-MAX crisis, neither was Ford’s during the Explorer or Pinto era, etc. – and those people had to think seriously about prosecution whereas what we’re seeing now has the sanction of being above the law. Saying it’s always been like that is too close to saying we can’t expect better for my tastes.