An ethics question for ourselves.
For many years, we have accepted large amounts of campaign money from interests the government is supposed to regulate. Some of our candidates are good friends with prominent people who work for those interests: corporate officers, investors, lobbyists, etc. We appoint some of them to important posts in the federal and state governments. We ask them to help us write legislation to regulate their businesses. We goon vacations and fact finding missions with them. We serve on their corporate boards, and they are officers of our foundations and charities. In general, we become very close friends with some of them. We insist this has absolutely no effect on how we govern, where tax breaks go, whose taxes get audited, etc.
Now the incoming president seems to be appointing his friends, based on their loyalty to him, business relationships, and some other criteria we can't quite pin down. Should we be criticizing his appointments on the grounds of financial ties? How is it different when he appoints his foxes to guard the hen house? Is there any difference? Qualitative or quantitative?
