>This may, then, be an example of technically permissible pay-to-play—in line with the technically permissible destruction of the East Wing, and the technically

>This may, then, be an example of technically permissible pay-to-play—in line with the technically permissible destruction of the East Wing, and the technically permissible payment mechanism for the project. None of these seem like they should be allowed in a representative democracy made up of three coequal branches. And yet, somehow, they probably are. It's in the second to last paragraph, but I thought this seemed like a pretty significant and interesting concession.