@kevcvs57 saidCap the dollars that can be spent, or the dollars that can be donated?
Oh I realise it’s been going on for years in a more opaque way but I think there’s a big difference between big business cosying up to politicians in the hope of future lobbying opportunities or corporations favouring the fiscally conservative anti labour law party and having the White House and its legislative power auctioned off to big oil at mar a largo
First thing to d ...[text shortened]... p the dollars that parties can spend in an election cycle on political adds and political hit videos
@wildgrass
We live in a country where it is perfectly legal for lobbyists to lay a bunch of $$$ on congressmen to gain favor.
It's been that way for as long as we have an America. Should that be legal...?
Hell no, but the people that get this form of largesse are the only ones that can make it illegal.
forgrddaboudit.
@Earl-of-Trumps saidWell I actually don't think that's legal at all. Lobbyists can't give money directly to congress people. Lobbying has a purpose of educating lawmakers on issues they can't possibly know everything about.
@wildgrass
We live in a country where it is perfectly legal for lobbyists to lay a bunch of $$$ on congressmen to gain favor.
It's been that way for as long as we have an America. Should that be legal...?
Hell no, but the people that get this form of largesse are the only ones that can make it illegal.
forgrddaboudit.
Man imagine that. If lobbyists could pay sitting congressmen, then we're in more trouble than I thought.
It's the campaign contributions though. Crazy money is spent from publicly traded companies seeking military contracts. We don't need to allow that.
@wildgrass saidJon Stewart (the daily show) just did about the corruption in congress, and that it’s congress which has oversight over congress.
Wealthy donors buy access and fealty with their contributions to political campaigns.
More often than not, this fact is veiled in implication and euphemism. It is corruption, in my opinion, but not the illegal kind. This is the kind of corruption that allows wealthy billionaires to be given free baseball stadiums by taxpayers, but it's not the kind of corruption that put ...[text shortened]... be illegal.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/09/trump-oil-industry-campaign-money/
The answer has to be: hell no.
Public servents and politicians have to adhere to stricter rules than the rest of society when it comes to things like corruption. They are paid by the tax payers and should be answerable to them.
This means that anything that even reeks of corruption should be avoided. You can’t have politicians or civil servents in the pockets of lobbyists.
That does not make good decision making.
@shavixmir saidRight - it seems like it'd be easy to simply require lawmakers to abstain from making decisions or voting on issues where they have a financial stake in the outcome
Jon Stewart (the daily show) just did about the corruption in congress, and that it’s congress which has oversight over congress.
The answer has to be: hell no.
Public servents and politicians have to adhere to stricter rules than the rest of society when it comes to things like corruption. They are paid by the tax payers and should be answerable to them.
This means ...[text shortened]... iticians or civil servents in the pockets of lobbyists.
That does not make good decision making.
Why can't we do that?
@wildgrass saidNancy Pelosi was asked this question and said it was un-American to not be allowed to make money…
Right - it seems like it'd be easy to simply require lawmakers to abstain from making decisions or voting on issues where they have a financial stake in the outcome
Why can't we do that?
Personally, I obviously disagree.
You can’t have politicians using inside information (like being on a committee on Boeing and selling all his stocks the say before the report is published, dissing Boeing).
@shavixmir saidPay them more and enforce conflicts of interest.
Nancy Pelosi was asked this question and said it was un-American to not be allowed to make money…
Personally, I obviously disagree.
You can’t have politicians using inside information (like being on a committee on Boeing and selling all his stocks the say before the report is published, dissing Boeing).
@wildgrass saidThe dollars that can be spent, make it an electoral law. If it’s blatant money for policies then that should be covered by corruption laws.
Cap the dollars that can be spent, or the dollars that can be donated?
@kevcvs57 saidIf a politician says to an oil executive, give me a billion dollars and I'll roll back regulations on your industry, should that be illegal?
The dollars that can be spent, make it an electoral law. If it’s blatant money for policies then that should be covered by corruption laws.
It's not covered by corruption or campaign law as far as I know.
Independent analysis confirms that if oil companies gave trump a billion dollars the return on investment would be 11,000%
@wildgrass
Which is the incentive to keep this corrupt system going, going stronger all the time. Look at the billionaire club now owning SCOTUS, 300,000 dollar vacations, chartering private jets at 11,000 dollars an hour and such, and SCOTUS makes their own 'ethics' committee. SCOTUS, Ethics, Oxymoron.
@wildgrass saidIt should be illegal and it will be in most democracies. Maybe the US electorate puts up with way too much, but I guess that’s their choice at the end of the day.
If a politician says to an oil executive, give me a billion dollars and I'll roll back regulations on your industry, should that be illegal?
It's not covered by corruption or campaign law as far as I know.
Independent analysis confirms that if oil companies gave trump a billion dollars the return on investment would be 11,000%
If their are no legal sanctions against selling power directly to the highest bidder then I guess it’s ok in the context of the US system
All I can say is that objectively speaking it’s about as wrong as it gets outside of a banana / carbon republic
@kevcvs57 saidUnless you remove all private financing for campaigns, it's impossible to enforce.
It should be illegal and it will be in most democracies. Maybe the US electorate puts up with way too much, but I guess that’s their choice at the end of the day.
If their are no legal sanctions against selling power directly to the highest bidder then I guess it’s ok in the context of the US system
All I can say is that objectively speaking it’s about as wrong as it gets outside of a banana / carbon republic
Best solution is government can spend less money so that oil companies don't stand to gain as much from trump. But even self proclaimed libertarians are in here defending government spending, so good luck with that.