Hacker News Reader

Comment by JumpCrisscross | Hacker News Reader

> 'Unlimited Campaign Contributions' is nothing more than newspeak for corruption. By very definition, it is about paying a person in a position of power to make a decision that is in your favor.

You are equating two different things. One, giving a politician money they can spend on personal luxuries for a political favor. Two, giving a strictly-regulated campaign money it can spend on advertising, political functions, et cetera, or less-regulated PACs.

Personal versus political benefits is one major diffference. Prevalence, and the necessity of engaging with corrupt organs to survive and thrive, is another.

Claiming corruption in America even rivals most of the world is unsubstantiated. The inverse is well substantiated.

View on HN

Must disagree. If you have money it is easier to find equality/justice. My favorite example: If you can afford it, you can get a license plate expressing your support for the state police (or your state bird). You can add to that fraternal order decals further expressing your support for the police. Does your willingness and ability to purchase those things make you MORE or LESS likely to receive special treatment during a traffic stop than someone without the ability to do so. Think about this.

Have you ever spoken to a police officer? I've worked with several, I've served on a borough council and a civil service commission, I've been contracted out to regional and state law enforcement agencies.

Nobody cares about the little sticker you put on your license plate. It's a $5 fundraiser. In my state I think the non-LEO license plates you're talking about are an extra $30 or $40 on top of your normal registration fees.

The only thing I've ever heard having any affect like what you're implying are the "police courtesy cards," PBA/FOP cards, whatever they're called in your state. And I haven't heard of them actually preventing any punishment, just incurring more of it.

If governments were serious about preventing corruption, they would have outlawed all those fake police badges and vanity license plates.

The only purpose they can serve is to corrupt.

Why would you hear about the cases of PBA/FOP cards preventing punishment?

The whole point of those interactions is to not talk about what happened.

Small gifts can have a big effect. There’s a reason drug reps always want to buy doctors lunches. It’s not for charity: that low double-digit “gift” pays for itself. And the out-the-door cost is $hundreds.

What I meant was I know people who have PBA/FOP cards, have tried to use them, and have gotten a tongue lashing in response in conjunction with no leniency at all. The only ones I've heard of ever working as intended are the courtesy cards for immediate family, and the general consensus is that dealing with your State Trooper father that night is as bad or worse than a $300 speeding ticket.

> You are equating two different things. One, giving a politician money they can spend on personal luxuries for a political favor. Two, giving a strictly-regulated campaign money it can spend on advertising, political functions, et cetera, or less-regulated PACs.

You forgot to add "for political favor" on the end of the third sentence.

I don't care how they're spending it, they're being given it because the person doing the giving wants a decision made in their favor. That's the very definition of bribery and corruption.

i.e. High Mr. Politician. I will give you $600,000 in "campaign contributions" so long as you vote against this particular thing that would be very inconvenient to my profits.

> Personal versus political benefits is one major diffference. Prevalence, and the necessity of engaging with corrupt organs to survive and thrive, is another.

The political benefits beget personal benefits. That's the point.

They are both corruption under two different names, no matter how you prevaricate.

Alice runs for office, saying she supports certain positions and policies and will work toward them if elected.

Bob, who agrees with those policies and positions, gives a large donation to Alice's campaign.

Alice wins, and works toward those positions and policies.

Are you saying Alice is corrupt because her campaign took money from someone who agreed with her stated positions?

Let's not forget how many politicians, after receiving 'legal' campaign dollars while or before their time in office end up in lucrative sinecures after leaving their elected positions. While they technically weren't bribed by today's myopically narrow interpretation of the crime, I would say this arrangement reeks of corruption to most.

There's also the personal utility view of this - if it is power they desire and you finance their acquisition of power, isn't that in a sense bribery? If they want power, why buy them a sports car....

It's clear to me that we need real campaign finance reform. No more dark money or third party political action committees. The fate of our democracy probably depends on it.

Just look at some of the former presidents in the US and what they are paid for speeches for book deals.

These enormous sums are far outside the normal. It reeks corruption.

To substantiate your point about campaign accounts: U.S. Representative Duncan Hunter is currently under indictment for spending campaign money on personal wants: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-duncan-hunter-poll...

I don't see a meaningful difference between personal and political spending here. If I can pay a politician to enact a policy I want, perhaps to the detriment of his constituency or society at large, what do I care if he goes on to spend that money on sports cars or his campaign to retain office? As far as I'm concerned it's quid pro quo either way.

This might be pedantic, but legally speaking, if you were to "pay a politician" for voting a certain way, it would be highly illegal. "quid pro quo", on a campaign contribution or a porsche or a briefcase of cash is all illegal.

IMO, lobbying is legalized bribing, so too me, lobbying is paying a politician to vote or do as you ask.

> lobbying is legalized bribing

So when I call my elected leaders to voice up about an issue, that's bribery? Because what I'm doing is lobbying. Or, if I call my elected leader and patch in a friend in another state who's more knowledgeable about the domain, is that lobbying?

If it's not, then what if my friend and I both patch in an out-of-district friend? What if we form a formal club? If we want (a) freedom of political speech and (b) freedom of political assembly, it gets really hard to separate a grassroots interest group from a destructive commercial one. (And should civic interests always trump commercial interests? That's a political question, too!)

TL; DR Democracy can't exist without lobbying. With respect to paid lobbying, I might agree, but the devil's in the details.

You aren't taking into account causality.

"Here's a sports car for you if you vote the way I like on this issue": this suggests that the sports car bought the vote, and so is indicative of corruption.

"I like your position on this issue, here's some money for your campaign to help you get elected, and that can only be spent for that": this suggests that the position is the cause of the money, not the other way around, and so is not indicative of corruption.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com