4 ms·

Elon's a large employer in Texas in industries with legal hurdles so it's unsurprising he ends up in email exchanges with senior politicians there, even more so

Elon's a large employer in Texas in industries with legal hurdles so it's unsurprising he ends up in email exchanges with senior politicians there, even more so since he's decided he's a political figure. He also has a... interesting line in quips, opinions and personal remarks which I imagine Abbott is happy to play along with when he's thinking more how much a friendlier relationship with Elon can boost his personal profile, state employment figures and bank balance and less about what other people reading it might think. So yeah, there's probably some genuinely not-for-public consumption stuff about Tesla/SpaceX future business initiatives and a whole lot of racism and snarky comments about people that are supposed to be political allies... Edit: wondering if the downvote brigade are supposed to be signalling that Elon doesn't have any legitimate reason to start conversations about his companies with Texas politicians or that private conversations with Elon would never end up segueing into something that might be embarrassing. Not sure which of those opinions is more ridiculous really...

normie3000 11mo ago
> industries with legal hurdles so it's unsurprising he ends up in email exchanges with senior politicians Why are politicians involved with legal issues? Is this correct?
- myrion 11mo ago
  Because politicians make laws, and those affect the "legal hurdles" that companies need to deal with.
- ceejayoz 11mo ago
  Who do you imagine writes laws?
  - normie3000 11mo ago
    Policy wonks?
    - int_19h 11mo ago
      Policy wonks write model bills. What actually gets passed on the floor eventually, with all the amendments, is not the same thing, usually.
- manquer 11mo ago
  Not legal issues in the sense issues contested in court, rather they mean to say the combination of regulations and compliance to state laws that any business particularly a large one with significant physical footprint[1] would need to comply with. Politicians are in the business of passing and enforcing those laws or giving exceptions to compliance. [1] A lot of less permits would be needed for 10,000 member software company compared to a rocket launch provider or a manufacturing unit.
  - normie3000 11mo ago
    > Politicians are in the business of passing and enforcing those laws or giving exceptions to compliance. I think this is what's confusing me - I'd expect politicians to pass laws, but enforcement might be the job of police, tax authorities, workplace safety inspectors, etc. And giving politicians say over who laws apply to sounds like a fast track to corruption.
    - manquer 11mo ago
      It is a fast track to corruption without a strong independent judiciary yes. politicians have a dual role they are the legislative authority and also are the executive (when in power) . They don’t do those roles concurrently but the same people switch between those two. The actual execution happens by police lawyers or tax authorities as you say, but the direction and leadership is set by the politicians. When to prosecute, whom to and what punishment to ask for and so on. In the US system there is additional complexity as what are nominally administrative positions like judge, sheriff etc also elected. So by definition those people also have to be politicians.
jeffbee 11mo ago
> a large employer ... with legal hurdles ... in email exchanges with senior politicians. This is how corruption is defined.
- tb_technical 11mo ago
  Personally, I define it as corruption when quid pro quo occurs, nice gifts, expensive dinners, etc. In government work, in my field specifically, it's the inappropriate transfer of money (gifts, deals, dinners) that's reportable. The limit for reporting in my field (for gifts) is 10 dollars.
  - edoceo 11mo ago
    Can't demonstrate quid-pro-quo of the details are redacted.
    - iscoelho 11mo ago
      Negotiating is difficult if you show your hand. It is arguably beneficial to both the state and Elon that the e-mails stay redacted. I agree it is unfortunate though.
      - jeffbee 11mo ago
        Sensitive negotiations like those should be handled by low-level bureaucrats with supervision, not by the damned Governor. Again, negotiating directly with a state governor is obviously corrupt no matter what the contents. This would have been instantly clear to any American back when we were an advanced nation.
        tb_technical 11mo ago
        Could you elaborate why an executive having sensitive conversations with a governor is corrupt? I'm having difficulty understanding this outlook. My industry has historically been extremely corrupt. This is why rules were defined for reportable expenses. Could you boil down your viewpoint into rules that can be applied in an organization, rather than a vibe test? I think I could better understand you, then.
catapart 11mo ago
re: your edit - My downvote was to indicate that I reject your implication that there are legitimate reasons to keep his communications with government officials private. "Government" is, in most instances, replaceable with "Public". If you don't want your private business to be public knowledge, do not do business with the public. And if you do business with the public, expect that business to be public. There are mechanisms to protect "private" information that do not require government secrecy or redactions. Private businesses use them all the time. They are fallible, sure, but so is everything. More importantly, they are subject to subpoena and other legal remedies so they can be made public if necessary, but they are otherwise private (unlike email). And no, it doesn't matter to me what levels of harm can be done by the lack of secrecy; that's not a reason to be secret, that's a reason to not provide so much harm exposure. Government should be minimizing risk, not providing mechanisms that engender it. Besides, if my refusal to show ID to a cop with no RAS can still get me arrested, obviously the state understands the law as a "do the bad thing, sort it out later" kind of setup. So show us the emails and let's start working to fix the fallout.
- notahacker 11mo ago
  Thanks for explaining the downvote. But the position that because an institution works on behalf of the public, every communication it receives should be public seems naive. The entire publicly funded criminal justice service depends on secrecy to function, for example. Similarly, the public doesn't need to be know the budget and shortlist of possible locations for the next Gigafactory or how to build a Falcon 9 any more than it needs to know the identities of whistleblowers, and if you don't redact that information, you don't get people blowing whistles or sharing their expansion plans with governors or IP with NASA. Without the ability to deliver suitcases full of cash in response to a private conversation being inconvenienced in the slightest. As you've already pointed out, we have such things as subpoenas already to deal with the actual criminal conduct. This is a better approach than "don't write anything you wouldn't share with everyone", not least because the latter actually normalizes every interaction with government officials being a request for an off-the-record in-person conversation.
  - inerte 11mo ago
Etheryte 11mo ago
Regarding your edit, I upvoted your comment at first, but instantly downvoted once I got to the edit. Whining about imaginary interet points is not a constructive discussion worth having and in my subjective opinion does not belong on HN.
- notahacker 11mo ago
  Fair, not whining about downvotes is in the guidelines. I would point out I got a constructive response out of it though. Mostly I was just amused by rapid fall before I got any replies and the possibility I might have managed to offend both ardently pro and anti Elon people with a relatively anodyne post :)
- stevenalowe 11mo ago
  Which is why I downvoted your off-topic diatribe :)
drivingmenuts 11mo ago
> segueing into something that might be embarrassing Like his support of racist organizations in Europe? Or hiding information about failures of self-driving automobiles? Or unexpected layoffs? There's probably a lot more, involving SpaceX, etc. Honestly, that first one alone merits a lot of hairy eyeballing, but I despise racists and hate that my home state is associated with them.
Zigurd 11mo ago
Much of the point of transparency laws is to shine light on secret shenanigans between the wealthy and powerful, and the government. Communications that shouldn't be made public, like between crime victims and certain government officials should be treated with clearly delineated special handling. That should be rare. Not part of informal email exchanges. That's why various government bodies have closed sessions for certain meetings. Embarrassment after the fact isn't a good reason to redact. If Elon is unclear on the concept, maybe he shouldn't be doing government work.

normie3000 11mo ago

> industries with legal hurdles so it's unsurprising he ends up in email exchanges with senior politicians Why are politicians involved with legal issues? Is this correct?

myrion 11mo ago
Because politicians make laws, and those affect the "legal hurdles" that companies need to deal with.
ceejayoz 11mo ago
Who do you imagine writes laws?
- normie3000 11mo ago
  Policy wonks?
  - int_19h 11mo ago
    Policy wonks write model bills. What actually gets passed on the floor eventually, with all the amendments, is not the same thing, usually.
manquer 11mo ago
Not legal issues in the sense issues contested in court, rather they mean to say the combination of regulations and compliance to state laws that any business particularly a large one with significant physical footprint[1] would need to comply with. Politicians are in the business of passing and enforcing those laws or giving exceptions to compliance. [1] A lot of less permits would be needed for 10,000 member software company compared to a rocket launch provider or a manufacturing unit.
- normie3000 11mo ago
  > Politicians are in the business of passing and enforcing those laws or giving exceptions to compliance. I think this is what's confusing me - I'd expect politicians to pass laws, but enforcement might be the job of police, tax authorities, workplace safety inspectors, etc. And giving politicians say over who laws apply to sounds like a fast track to corruption.
  - manquer 11mo ago
    It is a fast track to corruption without a strong independent judiciary yes. politicians have a dual role they are the legislative authority and also are the executive (when in power) . They don’t do those roles concurrently but the same people switch between those two. The actual execution happens by police lawyers or tax authorities as you say, but the direction and leadership is set by the politicians. When to prosecute, whom to and what punishment to ask for and so on. In the US system there is additional complexity as what are nominally administrative positions like judge, sheriff etc also elected. So by definition those people also have to be politicians.

jeffbee 11mo ago

> a large employer ... with legal hurdles ... in email exchanges with senior politicians. This is how corruption is defined.

tb_technical 11mo ago
Personally, I define it as corruption when quid pro quo occurs, nice gifts, expensive dinners, etc. In government work, in my field specifically, it's the inappropriate transfer of money (gifts, deals, dinners) that's reportable. The limit for reporting in my field (for gifts) is 10 dollars.
- edoceo 11mo ago
  Can't demonstrate quid-pro-quo of the details are redacted.
  - iscoelho 11mo ago
    Negotiating is difficult if you show your hand. It is arguably beneficial to both the state and Elon that the e-mails stay redacted. I agree it is unfortunate though.
    - jeffbee 11mo ago
      Sensitive negotiations like those should be handled by low-level bureaucrats with supervision, not by the damned Governor. Again, negotiating directly with a state governor is obviously corrupt no matter what the contents. This would have been instantly clear to any American back when we were an advanced nation.
      - tb_technical 11mo ago
        Could you elaborate why an executive having sensitive conversations with a governor is corrupt? I'm having difficulty understanding this outlook. My industry has historically been extremely corrupt. This is why rules were defined for reportable expenses. Could you boil down your viewpoint into rules that can be applied in an organization, rather than a vibe test? I think I could better understand you, then.

catapart 11mo ago

re: your edit - My downvote was to indicate that I reject your implication that there are legitimate reasons to keep his communications with government officials private. "Government" is, in most instances, replaceable with "Public". If you don't want your private business to be public knowledge, do not do business with the public. And if you do business with the public, expect that business to be public. There are mechanisms to protect "private" information that do not require government secrecy or redactions. Private businesses use them all the time. They are fallible, sure, but so is everything. More importantly, they are subject to subpoena and other legal remedies so they can be made public if necessary, but they are otherwise private (unlike email). And no, it doesn't matter to me what levels of harm can be done by the lack of secrecy; that's not a reason to be secret, that's a reason to not provide so much harm exposure. Government should be minimizing risk, not providing mechanisms that engender it. Besides, if my refusal to show ID to a cop with no RAS can still get me arrested, obviously the state understands the law as a "do the bad thing, sort it out later" kind of setup. So show us the emails and let's start working to fix the fallout.

notahacker 11mo ago
Thanks for explaining the downvote. But the position that because an institution works on behalf of the public, every communication it receives should be public seems naive. The entire publicly funded criminal justice service depends on secrecy to function, for example. Similarly, the public doesn't need to be know the budget and shortlist of possible locations for the next Gigafactory or how to build a Falcon 9 any more than it needs to know the identities of whistleblowers, and if you don't redact that information, you don't get people blowing whistles or sharing their expansion plans with governors or IP with NASA. Without the ability to deliver suitcases full of cash in response to a private conversation being inconvenienced in the slightest. As you've already pointed out, we have such things as subpoenas already to deal with the actual criminal conduct. This is a better approach than "don't write anything you wouldn't share with everyone", not least because the latter actually normalizes every interaction with government officials being a request for an off-the-record in-person conversation.
- inerte 11mo ago

Etheryte 11mo ago

Regarding your edit, I upvoted your comment at first, but instantly downvoted once I got to the edit. Whining about imaginary interet points is not a constructive discussion worth having and in my subjective opinion does not belong on HN.

notahacker 11mo ago
Fair, not whining about downvotes is in the guidelines. I would point out I got a constructive response out of it though. Mostly I was just amused by rapid fall before I got any replies and the possibility I might have managed to offend both ardently pro and anti Elon people with a relatively anodyne post :)
stevenalowe 11mo ago
Which is why I downvoted your off-topic diatribe :)

drivingmenuts 11mo ago

> segueing into something that might be embarrassing Like his support of racist organizations in Europe? Or hiding information about failures of self-driving automobiles? Or unexpected layoffs? There's probably a lot more, involving SpaceX, etc. Honestly, that first one alone merits a lot of hairy eyeballing, but I despise racists and hate that my home state is associated with them.

Zigurd 11mo ago

Much of the point of transparency laws is to shine light on secret shenanigans between the wealthy and powerful, and the government. Communications that shouldn't be made public, like between crime victims and certain government officials should be treated with clearly delineated special handling. That should be rare. Not part of informal email exchanges. That's why various government bodies have closed sessions for certain meetings. Embarrassment after the fact isn't a good reason to redact. If Elon is unclear on the concept, maybe he shouldn't be doing government work.