# $400 million bribe if the GOP repeals the Affordable Care Act? It can't be true, right... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 22, 2017, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/400-million-bribe-if-the-gop-repeals-the-affordable-care-act-it-cant-be-true-right/796934 "2017-09-22T03:14:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2017, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/400-million-bribe-if-the-gop-repeals-the-affordable-care-act-it-cant-be-true-right/796934/21 "2017-09-22T14:52:37Z")
So…which response are we supposed to argue against? : 1. It’s not happening. 2. It’s happening, but it’s no big deal. 3. You do it too! ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2017, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/400-million-bribe-if-the-gop-repeals-the-affordable-care-act-it-cant-be-true-right/796934/22 "2017-09-22T14:56:44Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > So…which response are we supposed to argue against? : > > 1. It’s not happening. > 2. It’s happening, but it’s no big deal. > 3. You do it too! 1. All of the above 2. I want to talk about cats and pie You can choose for yourself…I don’t think you are supposed to argue for or against anything you don’t really want to. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2017, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/400-million-bribe-if-the-gop-repeals-the-affordable-care-act-it-cant-be-true-right/796934/23 "2017-09-22T15:02:07Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > So…which response are we supposed to argue against? : > > 1. It’s not happening. > 2. It’s happening, but it’s no big deal. > 3. You do it too! You forgot the always popular “It’s not technically illegal. So therefore it’s okay.” ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2017, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/400-million-bribe-if-the-gop-repeals-the-affordable-care-act-it-cant-be-true-right/796934/24 "2017-09-22T15:08:37Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > You forgot the always popular “It’s not technically illegal. So therefore it’s okay.” Well, it’s ‘always popular’ (on a board such as this dedicated to truth) because it’s freaking legal, flat out. There is no ‘technically’ about it. Not sure why you are trying to imply differently, but we aren’t even talking about skating on the thin ice on this one, even if you and others are trying to imply, _wink wink_ _nudge nudge_ that hanky panky is afoot. Or something. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2017, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/400-million-bribe-if-the-gop-repeals-the-affordable-care-act-it-cant-be-true-right/796934/25 "2017-09-22T15:16:50Z")
> [@XT](#): > > … This riles you up because you don’t agree with the agenda, but I bet if it was a lobby group you did agree with you wouldn’t bat an eye. > > Me, I think all this lobbying stuff is slimy, regardless… You, noble **XT** , are opposed to _all_ lobbying slime, while your “liberal” GD sparring partner only opposes right-wing slime. Yaaay, you! > [@XT](#): > > I just don’t know a way to toss out the bathwater and keep the baby, or what the unintended consequences would be if we got rid of the system of lobbying money and organizations. Hmmm. One way was the campaign finance laws whose overturning by a 5-4 SCOTUS decision loosed the floodgates of Koch money. Time was when $20 and $50 contributions from ordinary citizens played the role that the Koch millions play now. Or, to you, were the $20 contributions just “slimy stuff” like the Koch money? ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2017, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/400-million-bribe-if-the-gop-repeals-the-affordable-care-act-it-cant-be-true-right/796934/26 "2017-09-22T15:16:51Z")
I’m perfectly fine with all the campaign donations going to causes and candidates I like … but we need to outlaw all the campaign donations going to causes and candidates I hate … what’s destroying our democracy is people who disagree with me !!! ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2017, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/400-million-bribe-if-the-gop-repeals-the-affordable-care-act-it-cant-be-true-right/796934/27 "2017-09-22T15:28:57Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Hmmm. One way was the campaign finance laws whose overturning by a 5-4 SCOTUS decision loosed the floodgates of Koch money. Time was when $20 and $50 contributions from ordinary citizens played the role that the Koch millions play now. Or, to you, were the $20 contributions just “slimy stuff” like the Koch money? It was struck down on 1st Amendment grounds, so that doesn’t seem to be a way to toss the bathwater out and keep the baby either. I didn’t have any issues with the Campaign Finance Reform (“McCain-Feingold”) FWIW…not sure why you thought I did, but hell you seem to make a lot of assumptions about what my positions are. You probably think I support the Republicans in the OP and the Koch bros who want to overturn Obamacare. 😛 > [@](#): > > You, noble XT, are opposed to all lobbying slime, while your “liberal” GD sparring partner only opposes right-wing slime. Yaaay, you! I do think all lobbying is slimy, and I’m astonished that people don’t seem to know how our system works and the history of lobbying, how lobby groups work or that what’s in the OP isn’t even that unusual…or, seemingly, know what is or isn’t legal. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2017, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/400-million-bribe-if-the-gop-repeals-the-affordable-care-act-it-cant-be-true-right/796934/28 "2017-09-22T17:43:34Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Well, it’s ‘always popular’ (on a board such as this dedicated to truth) because it’s freaking legal, flat out. There is no ‘technically’ about it. Not sure why you are trying to imply differently, but we aren’t even talking about skating on the thin ice on this one, even if you and others are trying to imply, _wink wink_ _nudge nudge_ that hanky panky is afoot. Or something. I’m not so sure. Lobbying and campaign contributions depend on the polite fiction that there is no quid pro quo going on. Piercing that veil and saying, in effect, “I will give you money if you do X” is indistinguishable from bribery. Especially when “X” is something that benefits the donor financially. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2017, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/400-million-bribe-if-the-gop-repeals-the-affordable-care-act-it-cant-be-true-right/796934/29 "2017-09-22T17:54:39Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Well, it’s ‘always popular’ (on a board such as this dedicated to truth) because it’s freaking legal, flat out. There is no ‘technically’ about it. Not sure why you are trying to imply differently, but we aren’t even talking about skating on the thin ice on this one, even if you and others are trying to imply, _wink wink_ _nudge nudge_ that hanky panky is afoot. Or something. Assuming the offer of campaign funds does not come with strings, it’s legal. If the funding is - as CNN reports - a direct offer in exhange for support of a specific policy, [it’s freaking illegal, flat out](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/89-1918.ZS.html). I take no position on whether CNN’s reporting is true in this case. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2017, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/400-million-bribe-if-the-gop-repeals-the-affordable-care-act-it-cant-be-true-right/796934/30 "2017-09-22T18:02:56Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I’m not so sure. Lobbying and campaign contributions depend on the polite fiction that there is no quid pro quo going on. Piercing that veil and saying, in effect, “I will give you money if you do X” is indistinguishable from bribery. Especially when “X” is something that benefits the donor financially. Speaking as someone who is fully in support of pubic financing of campaigns, what veil does anyone believe exists? Is it piercing some veil to walk into a bar and realize, “OH my God! Adults are consuming mind-altering chemicals!!” Of course people are giving money to people they want to see in office so that they can enact certain policies. The public policy response to the inherent risk of corruption in this arrangement is that until recently, the donations have been capped (such that no one person or lobby is likely to provide a disproportionate amount of the funds needed to run a campaign) and that the donations are subject to disclosure requirements so that the public can draw its own conclusions whether a candidate is misrepresenting his true interests to the public. (For example, imagine if we learned that Bernie Sanders’ top contributors were actually the tobacco industry, pharma, and Wall Street – people would have some serious questions for him!) The new laws regarding independent expenditures are very, very worrisome retreats from such good government/sunshine policies, but the shock expressed here seems to be more in line with, “OMG conservative fundraisers want conservative politicians to fulfill their conservative campaign promises!?!? END OF THE WORLD!!!” I can only wonder how many of the participants in this thread have sympathy or support for the idea of holding Democratic candidates to a single-payer litmus test: if they don’t support that policy, we are going to support real progressives with all means at our disposal to support instead of you. Is that also evidence of the end of the world? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2017, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/400-million-bribe-if-the-gop-repeals-the-affordable-care-act-it-cant-be-true-right/796934/31 "2017-09-22T18:11:52Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Speaking as someone who is fully in support of pubic financing of campaigns, what veil does anyone believe exists? Is it piercing some veil to walk into a bar and realize, “OH my God! Adults are consuming mind-altering chemicals!!” I don’t think anyone believes the veil actually exist. That’s the meaning of the phrase “polite fiction”. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2017, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/400-million-bribe-if-the-gop-repeals-the-affordable-care-act-it-cant-be-true-right/796934/32 "2017-09-22T18:15:44Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Assuming the offer of campaign funds does not come with strings, it’s legal. If the funding is - as CNN reports - a direct offer in exhange for support of a specific policy, [it’s freaking illegal, flat out](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/89-1918.ZS.html). I take no position on whether CNN’s reporting is true in this case. Unfortunately, reading your cite, the politician didn’t list those payments as campaign contributions. Also, there may be a technical difference between : a. “If you accept this money, you are agreeing to do X” b. “This money is sitting here. If you happen to do X, you get it”. It’s a fine line but apparently it is legal. The problem is that I do not see how you can even pretend you have a democracy if in practice some people get to cast a single vote, and some people get to give $400 million dollars, of which can all be spent on propaganda (outright lies) to manipulate people. If you listen to what many conservatives actually say, a lot of time the phrases they use are exactly things that would happen to benefit rich people, who they are usually not. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2017, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/400-million-bribe-if-the-gop-repeals-the-affordable-care-act-it-cant-be-true-right/796934/33 "2017-09-22T18:20:11Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Assuming the offer of campaign funds does not come with strings, it’s legal. If the funding is - as CNN reports - a direct offer in exhange for support of a specific policy, [it’s freaking illegal, flat out](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/89-1918.ZS.html). I take no position on whether CNN’s reporting is true in this case. I don’t know enough about law, but this doesn’t seem like a match to me. I don’t see how what this fund and the Koch bros are trying to do violates any of this from your link: > [@](#): > > Held: > > 1. The Court of Appeals erred in affirming McCormick’s conviction under the Hobbs Act, because a quid pro quo is necessary for a conviction when an official receives a campaign contribution, regardless of whether it is a legitimate contribution. Pp. 9-17. > > (a) The court affirmed the conviction on legal and factual grounds that were never submitted to the jury when it announced a rule of law for determining when payments are made under color of official right and found sufficient evidence to support its extortion findings. Assuming that the court was correct on the law, the judgment should have been set aside and a new trial ordered, since matters of intent are for the jury to consider, and since each of the court’s seven factors presents an issue of historical fact. Pp. 11-12. > > (b) A Hobbs Act violation would not be made out here even assuming an unfavorable response to all seven of the Court of Appeals’ inquiries, including the factors of whether the official acted in his official capacity at or near the time of payment, whether he had supported legislation before the payment, and whether he had solicited the payor individually. To hold that legislators commit the federal crime of extortion when they act for their constituents’ benefit or support legislation furthering their constituents’ interests, shortly before or after they solicit or receive campaign contributions from those beneficiaries, is an unrealistic assessment of what Congress could have meant when it made obtaining property from another “under color of official right” a crime. Rather, under these circumstances, property is extorted in violation of the Hobbs Act only when an official asserts that his official conduct will be controlled by the terms of the promise or undertaking. Pp. 13-16. > > (c) The Government’s argument that the jury convicted on the basis that the payment was not a campaign contribution is mere speculation, since the instructions permitted the jury to find McCormick guilty of extortion if the payment, even though a campaign contribution, was not voluntary. Nor can the tax conviction be relied on to show that the jury believed that the payment was not a contribution for Hobbs Act purposes, since the instruction on the tax count also failed to require the jury to find that the payment was not a contribution before it could convict on that count. Pp. 16-17. > > 1. The Court of Appeals erred in basing its affirmance of the tax conviction solely on the extortion conviction. The extortion conviction does not demonstrate that the payments were not campaign contributions and hence taxable, since the instructions permitted the jury to convict McCormick of the tax charge if it was convinced that the payments were campaign contributions but was also convinced that the money was extorted. However, this finding does not necessarily exhaust the possible grounds for affirming on the tax count. Pp. 17-18. Reading through the OPs link (it’s not from CNN, so didn’t read their article yet), I don’t see any of that relating to what you linked to here. I have to say, since they have been completely open about this (it’s on the Guardian after all :p), that it seems unlikely that anything illegal is going on here, unless you think that this network and the Koch’s are stupid enough to come right out and do some illegal shit this publicly. :dubious: However, as I said, I don’t claim to be a legal expert…how do you think what you linked to demonstrates that what is happening (as reported by CNN) is potentially illegal? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2017, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/400-million-bribe-if-the-gop-repeals-the-affordable-care-act-it-cant-be-true-right/796934/34 "2017-09-22T18:25:34Z")
McCormick didn’t disclose the money as a campaign contribution, but that was irrelevant since SCOTUS said the Hobbs Act was violated whether or not it was a legitimate contribution. The problem with the conviction was that the prosecution had not established a quid pro quo, and the lower court reasoned that wasn’t necessary if the contributions were “illegitimate.” McCormick would still have been convicted even though the monies _were_ a campaign contribution, had the prosecution established more than a temporal nexus. > [@](#): > > The receipt of such contributions is also vulnerable under the Act as having been taken under color of official right, but only if the payments are made in return for an explicit promise or undertaking by the official to perform or not to perform an official act. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2017, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/400-million-bribe-if-the-gop-repeals-the-affordable-care-act-it-cant-be-true-right/796934/35 "2017-09-22T18:41:25Z")
> [@XT](#): > > > [@septimus](#): > > > > a 5-4 SCOTUS decision loosed the floodgates of Koch money > > It was struck down on 1st Amendment grounds … Sorry for the hijack, but a 5-4 decision is a 5-4 decision. In fact it’s a 5-4 decision of a court with at least 4 rabid right-wingers. But no matter who the 9 Justices, it’s fair to say that _almost as many Justices, knowing far more about the Constitution than you or I_, opposed the decision as supported it. If you had written “Sad decision but we’ll have to live with it for decades,” I might find myself in agreement. But instead you overrule the Four because the majority intoned “1st Amendment.” If I found that the minority opinion also mentioned an Amendment, would that affect your view? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2017, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/400-million-bribe-if-the-gop-repeals-the-affordable-care-act-it-cant-be-true-right/796934/36 "2017-09-22T18:51:54Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Sorry for the hijack, but a 5-4 decision is a 5-4 decision. In fact it’s a 5-4 decision of a court with at least 4 rabid right-wingers. But no matter who the 9 Justices, it’s fair to say that _almost as many Justices, knowing far more about the Constitution than you or I_, opposed the decision as supported it. > > If you had written “Sad decision but we’ll have to live with it for decades,” I might find myself in agreement. But instead you overrule the Four because the majority intoned “1st Amendment.” If I found that the minority opinion also mentioned an Amendment, would that affect your view? Um…isn’t that how the supreme court works? Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t 5 to 4 mean it was struck down? If a conservative said about a piece of legislature that they didn’t agree with from the past ‘but a 5-4 decision is a 5-4 decision. In fact, it’s a 5-4 decision of a court with at least 4 rabid’ left-wingers, would they have a valid point? 😕 As for the last, I’d be interested, but, frankly, it’s a done deal until it goes to another USSC on appeal or whatever. I haven’t always agreed with (or frankly even understood in some cases) past court decisions or stances, but a majority is a majority. In this case, if you are saying you don’t agree with the decision I would agree with that…but that’s based on my limited understanding of the law and only a superficial understanding McCain-Feingold. Plus my distaste for lobbyist groups and money going to politicians with only the broadest of checks, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2017, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/400-million-bribe-if-the-gop-repeals-the-affordable-care-act-it-cant-be-true-right/796934/37 "2017-09-22T18:53:17Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I don’t think anyone believes the veil actually exist. That’s the meaning of the phrase “polite fiction”. It isn’t even a fiction, polite or otherwise. Politicians ask for votes and money so they can win the election and do A, B, and C. Where is the fiction? Nobody is dressing it up in any misleading way. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2017, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/400-million-bribe-if-the-gop-repeals-the-affordable-care-act-it-cant-be-true-right/796934/38 "2017-09-22T19:49:42Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > It isn’t even a fiction, polite or otherwise. Politicians ask for votes and money so they can win the election and do A, B, and C. Where is the fiction? Nobody is dressing it up in any misleading way. Getting a million votes requires that a politician has to promise to represent the interests of a million people. But a politician only has to promise to represent the interests of one person to get a million dollars. A system where political power is held by the people who collected the most votes is a democracy. A system where political power is held by the people who collected the most money is not. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2017, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/400-million-bribe-if-the-gop-repeals-the-affordable-care-act-it-cant-be-true-right/796934/39 "2017-09-22T19:51:15Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Getting a million votes requires that a politician has to promise to represent the interests of a million people. But a politician only has to promise to represent the interests of one person to get a million dollars. > > A system where political power is held by the people who collected the most votes is a democracy. A system where political power is held by the people who collected the most money is not. You are saying that dead presidents don’t get to vote? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2017, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/400-million-bribe-if-the-gop-repeals-the-affordable-care-act-it-cant-be-true-right/796934/40 "2017-09-22T19:58:06Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Getting a million votes requires that a politician has to promise to represent the interests of a million people. But a politician only has to promise to represent the interests of one person to get a million dollars. So I must preface this with a reminder that I’m in favor of public financing, but if one person is going to provide a million dollars to support a candidate, 99.5% of the promised funds will NEVER go to the candidate’s campaign. Instead, they will be independent expenditures which cannot be coordinated with the candidate. Furthermore, campaign cash isn’t like the electoral college: votes still determine the winner. So what do you think about Democrats establishing a litmus test for being pro-choice, pro-single payer, etc? Is that also corrupting? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/400-million-bribe-if-the-gop-repeals-the-affordable-care-act-it-cant-be-true-right/796934.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/400-million-bribe-if-the-gop-repeals-the-affordable-care-act-it-cant-be-true-right/796934.md?page=3)