I get that. What I’m talking about (again, see LBJ) is a pol whose worth is inexplicably much, much more than could ever be explained by a team of crack lawyers than his salary, and net worth going into government service adds up to.
Am I crazy? You look at all the examples we have–Sinema and Manchin, to name two in today’s news–turning government service into a cash-producing machine, but literally hundreds of Congresspeople and Senators (and Governors and Mayors, etc.) who aren’t just skimming a little cash on the side but are obviously taking it in by the wheelbarrowful, and the overseers lending a blind eye to this all-but-open corruption, and no one is able to make anything stick. Well, maybe Burr, if the previous citation is correct, but even in those rare cases, the punishment is just that he resign from office. In other words, the worst thing that happens is that the overseer says “OK, we’re cutting off the spigot on you. You can keep what you’ve stolen, but no charges will be filed, of course, Senator. Have a nice day,” and Burr gets to retire with a cushy pension and his stolen wealth.
I just looked up Manchin - he seems to have a net worth of about $5 million. Apparently , quite a bit of his net worth and income is from a company he founded in 1988 before he became a full-time politician. He was in the West Virginia Senate at the time, which currently pays $20K so it seems that was a part-time position. From what I’ve read, those part-time elected positions typically don’t have nearly as many rules regarding conflicts as full-time positions do - and if there wasn’t a rule prohibiting him from founding a coal-brokerage company while serving in the WV State legislature , then the fact that he did so can’t really be called “corruption”,
Sanders apparently amassed much of his “fortune” through real estate, in addition to writing books and giving speeches. He’s not hugely wealthy considering his age and compared to what many paper millionaires have in their retirement accounts. Bernie gets particular attention compared to, say, Mark Warner because of his stick-it-to-the-rich pronouncements.
Where Sinema got her dough from is a legitimate question (mostly being asked by fly-by-night websites, though more legit sources have singled out where her campaign contributions come from), but assuming corruption in the absence of evidence is weak.
Once upon a time (not so long ago actually) I lived paycheck-to-paycheck. Then I got a steady, well-paying job and no longer stressed about bills all the time. I got by okay as long as I was reasonably responsible about spending.
Then I got a promotion. Not a huge promotion (just the next step up in what I was doing) and not a giant increase in pay either. But since I previously had hit equilibrium with my finances even the smallest amount of increase went from a plateau to a rise. In a year my checking account went from having around a thousand bucks to having thousands. It’s like a bucket that is now full so even the slowest drips of water into that bucket turn the floor from dry to wet over time as it overflows.
In time with wise (lucky?) investments that extra money could turn into real wealth. From the outside it might look like I’m doing something illegal; how could someone possibly get rich from just a modest pay increase? But it’s not that strange.
See, this is what I don’t get. Why don’t we have laws–ironclad laws–to prevent corruption of this type? Strict definition of outside income, all outside income (speeches, books, stock ownership) completely banned, mandatory sentences for violations, etc. Sure, you’d discourage some people from serving, but I think you’d still get some people motivated by a six-figure salary to run for office, and how much lower quality could we get than the ones we have right now?
Because many , maybe most , people don’t equate any form of outside income with “corruption”. Some types of income such as bribery and kickbacks are. Other types of income may lead to either apparent or real conflicts of interest. But you are talking about banning any sort of outside income , and presumably outside investments as well, since you mention stock. I’m not so sure you would get that many people who were interested in even a six figure salary if it meant that they would have to either sell their assets or treat them as if they were currency being kept under the mattress- sure, you don’t have to sell your two-family house , but you aren’t allowed the income from renting the second floor apartment. Or sure, you can keep the money that’s in your 401K - but you have to move it all to a fund that earns approximately as much as a savings account, lest you accumulate too much wealth.
No, of course it’s not an inalienable right - but you speak of it as if everyone agrees with you that no politician should have any form of outside income and that’s not actually the case. If it was, Michael Bloomberg would have never been elected to anything - and yet I know people who considered his wealth a plus because they believed it meant he couldn’t be bought and that he wouldn’t make decisions based on what would financially benefit him. ( it turns out they were wrong in the general case, although not about him specifically as far as I can tell). If people believe that any form of outside income is corruption , they are perfectly free not to vote for the candidate who earns money from books, speeches or renting out the top floor of their house. It doesn’t seem that outside income (or wealth) is all that important to the voters.
In Colorado, Assembly members make $40,000 for 4 months worth of work. The problem is how many Coloradans can take 4 months off from work. If Assembly members are now limited to only $40K a year with 8 months of not being able to earn money, then we’ve just limited our legislators to a small subset of our residents.
There’s a middle ground between no restrictions at all, and banning ownership of stocks and all outside income.
The intelligence community requires civilian employees to submit annual financial statements detailing all outside income, holdings, and investments. I don’t see why Congress shouldn’t do the same (assuming it doesn’t already).
The main obstacle would probably be that the ones who would have to pass the law are the ones it would constrain.
That be as it may, I don’t expect these people to die destitute - like if we ban them from being able to invest their savings. Nor do I see any harm in letting them earn good, honest money.
If it were actually good, honest money, we wouldn’t be having this conversation, would we?
My notion of sharply restricting outside income solves an additional problem: that of term limits. Someone might decide to take a few years off his lucrative career, and enter public service for a time but after a few terms in office, might well decide to return to his law practice or to sit on the board of directors or to open a new equities company.
Honestly, the present situation seems to me all but legalized corruption, and you folks generally seem just fine with that as the status quo. It needn’t be.
Are you formally revising the hypothetical from the original post, such that the person who became a multimillionaire did not do so by earning good, honest money?
I’m confused as to what you are asking with this topic. You asked,
My response to that question as written would be, it depends on the details. Said hypothetical person did not necessarily engage in any corrupt dealings.
But if it is a given that the millions are not “good, honest money”, and admitting corruption is “not the answer usually given”, then by process of elimination the response must be either a lie, or no response at all.
What are you even talking about? Could you clearly state the “problem” you see with term limits, and how your proposal to keep anyone elected to public office from ever earning money from any other source for the rest of their lives solves it?
Honestly, I can’t tell if you think term limits are good or bad, or what impact you think not allowing any income from other sources for the rest of a politician’s career would have on the positive/negative effects of term limits.
I will say that one benefit we could have theoretically had from the OP’s proposal to keep all elected officials from ever earning outside money again is to keep Trump from wanting to run for President. If only.
What I’m suggesting is that in many instances the accumulation of millions (way beyond the total of government paychecks earned) is winked at by lax oversight agencies, or is allowed by lax laws (drawn up, of course, by the people I’m suggesting are in need of strict scrutiny.) I think what I’m commenting on is more than plain enough for anyone who cares to see. There is an inherent conflict of interest in anyone employed in designing laws to be earning income, while that government employment is active,
My OP is expressing curiosity about how exactly these earners justify their earnings, which I consider unethical on their face, but it has gotten hijacked by those professing to see no problem inherent in holding two (or twenty) jobs at once, one of which has a significant say in governmental policies that can be exploited easily by anyone (or 535 anyones) who cares to, with no one saying as much as “Ahem.”
I see governmental service as just that, service. Which usually requires personal sacrifice.
If someone wants to serve in the government, I’m suggesting that rather than devise laws limiting their terms of service, we simply institute very tight controls on outside income, which will have that same effect without the need to draw up a set of laws.