7 ms·

In cases of bribe, do you blame only the receiver, or the one who gives bribe, too? And as a non-American I fully see this as nothing but bribing. The only dif

• chadwickthebold 13y ago
  It's not quite that clear cut. In this case, Rep. Goodlatte probably considered how vocal opposition of the bill by large corporations could cast him as 'Anti-Business' by his constituency, or a challenger in an upcoming election. There is no mention in the article that IBM, Microsoft, or any other company offered to contribute to Goodlatte's campaign fund or support him in any other way in exchange for the removal of the CBM provisions. While American politics is often seen as pay-to-play, especially after the 'Citizens United' decision by the Supreme court, it's important to differentiate situations where there is almost-direct financial ties from situations where it is more a question of political pressure. If some people (i.e. the tech-consuming public) elected to pressure our representatives more than large companies, this bill could have turned out very differently.
  • logfromblammo 13y ago
    The difference between the threat to cut off your campaign support directly and the threat to support a challenger in your next primary is a rather fine hair to split. Political pressure in the US always boils down to two things: money and media support. And those two are almost freely convertible, provided that you are completely milquetoast and unthreatening to the status quo.
• marcosdumay 13y ago
  Depends on the kind of bribe. On this specific case, I'd blame both, but it's not a universal rule.
• anoncowherd 13y ago
  >> And as a non-American I fully see this as nothing but bribing. The only difference is that in US paying money to pass or fail bills like this is "legal". You think it doesn't happen in your country? You can rest assured your government is full of corrupt shitbags too, just like the US. There's overt corruption, covert corruption, and lots of degrees in between.
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  • ivanca 13y ago
    The problem he is pointing out is that here is blatantly clear that this is corruption but is socially acceptable because is a "gift" or "campaign sponsorship".
    • anoncowherd 13y ago
      Campaign contributions are common all over the world, but it's not like we can do anything about it.
      • ivanca 13y ago
        That is false, is just laziness (and sometimes comfortability or mediocrity) the causes of our idleness against corruption but we can do a lot; but we have to try! Just in Paraguay many restaurants and other public sites are prohibiting the entrance to all the corrupted senators, in Brazil public manifestations against corruption were able to label corruption as a crime against humanity; and never forget things like the apartheid and other peaceful manifestations that were able to create big changes.
        • anoncowherd 13y ago
          >> Just in Paraguay many restaurants and other public sites are prohibiting the entrance to all the corrupted senators That's nice and all, but do you think those evil corrupt shitbag sociopaths will change their behaviour because of that? "WHOA! I've been taking bribes for ages, but now I see that has to stop! I shall mend my evil ways and become a bet- oh, wait, I'm a sociopath and don't have a conscience! Come to think of it, maybe I'll just keep taking bribes and destroying ordinary people's lives just like before!" The only real "solution" is for people to let go of their belief in authority.
• tedunangst 13y ago
  Blame the receiver. They are the ones entrusted by the system to uphold the laws. We have laws (and lawmakers) precisely because we don't expect companies to always play fair. By contrast, once someone starts taking bribes, it becomes disadvantageous for a moral company to not offer bribes. Basically, hate the game, not the player, but hate the people who determine the game's rules most of all.