Eh… There are a variety of end-runs around this mechanism.
Hiring politicians on as lobbyists or allowing friends and family to sit on private run boards and trusts can create a back channel for money to flow into a politician’s pockets. Public money can be funneled into private profits for which the supporting politicians are also stockholders. And politicians can receive discounted/free services from friendly private sector constituencies. FOX News, the classic example, is a multi-billion dollar network dedicated to running Republican-friendly media. But when corporate lobbyists and political strategists can be found everywhere from the boards of NPR/PBS to the guest chairs of MSNBC to the editorial rooms of the WaPo/WSJ/NYT, there’s really no safe spaces left.
You can mitigate the direct “bag of cash for favors” effect that, say, John Boehner cutting tobacco lobbyist checks on the floor of the House has produced in the past. But you can’t keep public sector administrators from finding ways to receive kickbacks via private sector channels unless you completely divorce these institutions.
Eh… There are a variety of end-runs around this mechanism.
There are any number of hypothetical end-runs around just about anything you can think of, that doesn’t make protections, mechanisms, controls, or safeties useless.
In the US, political bribery is nearly 100% legal. I’d rather have some hoops for corrupt officials to jump through. We don’t even make them break a sweat in this country.
Sure, but that doesn’t mean that even discussing real or hypothetical measures to reign in corruption is inherently worthless because you can sometimes get around some of them.
I hate the US “either we solve everything, or nothing is worth doing” mindset that’s pervasive in this country, and the only reason I responded is because you’re providing a good example of it.
You can make this same, tired, ultimately invalid argument about anything you look to improve.
You can’t prevent the spread of all communicable disease, so why bother taking any precautions?
Someone could build their own gun, so why bother preventing a convicted felon from buying an oozie?
Someone could evade a line item tax by hiring a fancy lawyer and setting up bespoke legal structures around themselves as an entity, so why bother looking at closing any of the existing tax loopholes?
The answer is that because it’s not fucking all or nothing. Sure, someone could hypothetically do lots of things to evade any precaution that you put in place around dangerous or bad things, but that doesn’t mean it’s completely ineffective. If it’s too much of a hassle, some people won’t bother. Some people will actually get caught. Hell, with the existing lax corruption laws and lazy ass enforcement in the US people are still sometimes found in violation of them.
It isn’t a “if you ain’t first you’re last” situation. Reasonable safeguards, laws, standards, practices, and the like save and improve lives.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/party-financing lots of countries limit how much can be given to politicians
Eh… There are a variety of end-runs around this mechanism.
Hiring politicians on as lobbyists or allowing friends and family to sit on private run boards and trusts can create a back channel for money to flow into a politician’s pockets. Public money can be funneled into private profits for which the supporting politicians are also stockholders. And politicians can receive discounted/free services from friendly private sector constituencies. FOX News, the classic example, is a multi-billion dollar network dedicated to running Republican-friendly media. But when corporate lobbyists and political strategists can be found everywhere from the boards of NPR/PBS to the guest chairs of MSNBC to the editorial rooms of the WaPo/WSJ/NYT, there’s really no safe spaces left.
You can mitigate the direct “bag of cash for favors” effect that, say, John Boehner cutting tobacco lobbyist checks on the floor of the House has produced in the past. But you can’t keep public sector administrators from finding ways to receive kickbacks via private sector channels unless you completely divorce these institutions.
There are any number of hypothetical end-runs around just about anything you can think of, that doesn’t make protections, mechanisms, controls, or safeties useless.
In the US, political bribery is nearly 100% legal. I’d rather have some hoops for corrupt officials to jump through. We don’t even make them break a sweat in this country.
Not even hypothetical. We just had the SCOTUS kick down the door on legal bribery in Snyder v United States.
I mean, if we’ve got a magic lamp I can do better than a few hoops. But the system is of the corrupt, by the corrupt, for the corrupt.
At some point, you’re forced to recognized the farce of democracy at work.
IIRC, people were talking about places that aren’t the US.
As stated, political bribery in the US is nearly 100% legal. You can even study it in school and make a career out of it.
The Canadian system has it’s own share of corruption and bribery. Just check out Rob Ford, ffs.
Sure, but that doesn’t mean that even discussing real or hypothetical measures to reign in corruption is inherently worthless because you can sometimes get around some of them.
I hate the US “either we solve everything, or nothing is worth doing” mindset that’s pervasive in this country, and the only reason I responded is because you’re providing a good example of it.
I’m not a big fan of people wish casting naive solutions and then getting hostile when they hear the solutions aren’t viable.
You can make this same, tired, ultimately invalid argument about anything you look to improve.
You can’t prevent the spread of all communicable disease, so why bother taking any precautions?
Someone could build their own gun, so why bother preventing a convicted felon from buying an oozie?
Someone could evade a line item tax by hiring a fancy lawyer and setting up bespoke legal structures around themselves as an entity, so why bother looking at closing any of the existing tax loopholes?
The answer is that because it’s not fucking all or nothing. Sure, someone could hypothetically do lots of things to evade any precaution that you put in place around dangerous or bad things, but that doesn’t mean it’s completely ineffective. If it’s too much of a hassle, some people won’t bother. Some people will actually get caught. Hell, with the existing lax corruption laws and lazy ass enforcement in the US people are still sometimes found in violation of them.
It isn’t a “if you ain’t first you’re last” situation. Reasonable safeguards, laws, standards, practices, and the like save and improve lives.