Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

sharedvalues

(6,916 posts)
17. US has legalized political corruption
Mon Oct 9, 2017, 10:36 AM
Oct 2017

Any politician who takes campaign money to favor a contributor is by usual definition, corrupt.
The US has just decided, farcically, that such implicit quid pro quos are technically legal.
There is no bigger issue corrupting US democracy than this.

Lots of reading here:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/books/review/zephyr-teachouts-corruption-in-america.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/in-theory/wp/2016/05/05/how-the-supreme-court-gets-corruption-totally-wrong/


How the Supreme Court gets corruption totally wrong

Members of Congress spend the majority of their time fundraising from wealthy donors, learning the smallest details about donors' lives — at the expense of learning about the policy details most relevant to their legislative work. When they're not fundraising, members may be anxious about meeting their fundraising quotas set by the national committees, or worried about offending the secret donors to powerful super PACs. This lurking fear undoubtedly shapes policy decisions, lest a wrong move trigger a deluge of attack ads from special interests.

The Supreme Court has said that none of this is corrupt or corrupting. That defies law, history and logic.



(You're using the technical legal defn of bribery discussed above. As the law stands today. That current law is a big problem for american democracy. It allows politicians to be purchased. That's what's created today's billionaire-controlled GOP.)
Mueller time Not Ruth Oct 2017 #1
The media not fooled Oct 2017 #2
What is a better word? Maybe they should leave out the reference to Trump altogether? Maraya1969 Oct 2017 #3
Spawns Soxfan58 Oct 2017 #7
That will do. eom Maraya1969 Oct 2017 #21
Co-conspirators? Orrex Oct 2017 #9
Way to guard the public trust, Cy. nocalflea Oct 2017 #4
If corrupt why did he return money before meeting? Cicada Oct 2017 #5
Too bad we've legalized political corruption. sharedvalues Oct 2017 #11
You have no evidence for your claim Cicada Oct 2017 #12
US has legalized political corruption sharedvalues Oct 2017 #17
Vance did not take money to favor a contributor Cicada Oct 2017 #18
Campaign contributions are in practice corruption (see articles I linked from Z Teachout) sharedvalues Oct 2017 #19
I agree we should outlaw campaign contributions Cicada Oct 2017 #23
I don't know the details about Vance. But this looks bad. sharedvalues Oct 2017 #24
This is the same as Trump's donation to FL AG Bondi. And it is still be investigated Maraya1969 Oct 2017 #25
Because it is illegal to take money from someone under investigation and meet with them. L. Coyote Oct 2017 #15
It is not illegal to meet with a campaign contributor Cicada Oct 2017 #16
Read the articles I linked above. It SHOULD be illegal, but SCOTUS defined it away. sharedvalues Oct 2017 #20
It was label as a "Campaign contribution" Chances are it went into his pocket eventually Maraya1969 Oct 2017 #26
Because he got $35,000 after the fact. Then he got $50,000 a few years later Maraya1969 Oct 2017 #22
The $25,000 was the first donation! atreides1 Oct 2017 #28
Returning the 25K is a policy Merlot Oct 2017 #29
You need to edit this. You mention Ivana. The K is missing secondwind Oct 2017 #6
I fixed it. Thanks Maraya1969 Oct 2017 #27
Vance should be investigated, not for dropping the case against the Kushners AJT Oct 2017 #8
trump has always bought politicians, espeically DAs so whats new? beachbum bob Oct 2017 #10
Mafia presidency.... Blue_Tires Oct 2017 #13
Recommended. H2O Man Oct 2017 #14
I Hope So Me. Oct 2017 #30
His father must be spinning in his grave cyclonefence Oct 2017 #31
It Was His Father's Name & Reputation That Got Him The Nom In The First Place Me. Oct 2017 #32
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»So Manhattan District Att...»Reply #17