Does anyone have any examples at all of politicians taking actual bribes from lobbyists? Does anyone have a single example of bribery influencing what legislation is enacted?
Taking campaign money from people who support you is not bribery. Nor is your boss bribing you to work. If you aren’t doing a satisfactory job, your boss will stop paying you, and if politicians aren’t doing a satisfactory job, their donors will stop donating. That’s not bribery, that’s just consenting adults spending money on things they want. Like productive employees and political advertisements.
Supporting a political campaigning isn’t a bribe; it’s not an outright quid-pro-quo. There are plenty of candidates who take money from sources and then vote against the interests or desires of those who financially supported their campaign. It’s not like someone’s getting handed a suitcase full of money for a gaming license or a construction project. I know Bernie Sanders has made it fashionable to essentially call it bribery but it’s not.
That doesn’t mean I like the system, but I think if people are going to call for a revolution then they really need to know precisely what they are changing before they change it. There’s a place for funding a campaign. The irony of the Sanders campaign is that by collecting money from individuals, he has essentially proven that there are alternative campaign finance mechanisms available than the ones that he rails against. In effect, he’s proven that, through greater democratic participation, a system that is ‘rigged’ can be unrigged.
No, you don’t have it. Koch Industries is just one small part of the Koch network. It’s the “official” organization that people can point to when they want to pretend the Kochs don’t spend as much as they do.
So people point to Koch Industries and say “See? The Kochs only spent thirty million on political contributions.”
The reality is that the total spent on political contributions from all organizations in the Koch network is somewhere around nine hundred million dollars.
A strong opposition party is a damn fine approach. They have a powerful incentive to expose corruption – so that they can get elected (and start to take bribes themselves!)
Change the nature of that vow they take. So it has some real teeth. I want their hand to tremble as they swear! Make it clear, they could go to jail!
Seriously, change the rules such that the slightest impropriety and they lose their seat, their pension, must repay their salary, AND get convicted of a crime. And if they’re lawyers, lose their law licenses too!
Cheating on your wife, your taxes, your campaign finance declarations, expense reports, sexually harassing anyone, etc. All grounds for dismissal.
That ought to do it.
(PS I think the current prez would have nothing to worry about. Some of his predecessors? Not so much!)
Well, I see a lot of crazy suggests here that are NOT forms of legalized corruption or bribery.
Lobbyists are very restricted in what they can do, and they actually do play a vital role in the political process. That’s was the OP’s first scape goat.
Then someone brought up Citizens United, which governs spending by individuals and corporations for their own free speech, which by definition must be free of control and coordination from any candidates. If it is corruption to state your opinion of a candidate, then democracy itself is corruption.
If money was so important, Carly Fiorina would be a Senator and Mitt Romney would be running for his second term.
The Buckley decision had nothing to do with lobbyists. The right to petition government is a part of the first amendment and that is what lobbyists do.
Of course an outright quid pro quo would be illegal. Everything is done with a wink and a nod. That’s why the politicians can’t be allowed to accept anything of value. We should assume anything given to a politician is meant to be a bribe. They can have their substantial salary, maintain any disclosed source of income they already have, but that’s it.
It doesn’t take substantial amounts of money to campaign. I don’t believe in the kind of public financing people talk about, i.e. giving my money to people I don’t want to be elected, but I have no problem with requiring media to provide coverage for political campaigns, and public donations to funds equally provided among candidates would be fine with me as well.
Step 1: public funding of all national campaigns. Everyone running for Congress gets $x. Only public money can be used for campaign costs (and if x is small enough, surprise! there would be fewer TV ads. bonus.)
Step 2: since candidates do not need to have their campaigns funded, they do not need to solicit funds. Money <> speech in this scenario; money = a bribe. Pass a law that says that direct contributions to a candidate is therefore a bribe and a criminal offense.
And what does the Koch Bros Network reap from this spending? Cheap illegal immigrant labor? Firing Americans and replacing them with HB1 Visa holders like Disney?
Money is important; votes are more important. Money finances a campaign, but money doesn’t always equal more votes. If ever there was an election that has proved that point it is the presidential election of 2016.
I think you’d still have to pass a constitutional amendment to make this work.
But it doesn’t address a billionaire funding his or her own campaign and buying an election. A rich person who could self-fund a campaign would have a huge advantage over someone depending on public funding.
I won’t say that money isn’t important. Money buys a place at the table. But it doesn’t buy votes – unless it actually does buy votes. If ever there is a presidential election that proves this point, it’s the one you’re following now.
Your assumptions are not reality. If NRA could just bribe politicians, then they would probably have more democratic supporters. Special interest groups spend money on candidates whom they believe are going to be receptive to their political agenda. If they spend money on Ted Cruz, it’s because Ted Cruz has had positions that are ideologically similar to those the NRA espouses. That’s always why they don’t waste money on candidates like Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton. But that’s not bribery; that’s spending money to support a campaign and have a voice on policy.
It does take substantial amounts to campaign. If it didn’t, if anyone could campaign, voters would have a much harder time deciding which candidate is worth voting for.
And so if 100 or 1000 people decide to run, how do we finance all of these campaigns? On what basis is the money distributed? Also, as someone pointed out already, your proposal still doesn’t fundamentally address the problem of leveling the playing field. Political races would become a rich person’s game exclusively. I don’t think you’ve thought this one through. Just more “rigged economy” rhetoric.
Presidential elections are absolutely the last place to go looking for proof either way that money can buy elections, because both contenders in ANY presidential election are going to have PLENTY of money to throw around. One may have more than another, but both will be able to saturate the media with commercials when and where they want to.
Congressional and state and local elections are MUCH more useful for making this point, and boy, do they!
Doesn’t matter. If you’re on the ballot, you get money. Everybody gets the same amount. If there are a lot of people on the ballot, then maybe the money pool would have to be smaller…and wouldn’t that be terrible? The election cycle might shrink to a few weeks, and all we can afford is to send everyone a mailer with the candidate’s positions. Oh, the horror.
It buys votes in the legislature. However, as you are about to point out it does buy votes from the electorate.
It’s true that a lot of the bribers should spread their money around more, that’s what Trump did. But in general you spend the money on politicians who will keep their job when they do your bidding. The pols then go out and beat the drums for your cause, ignoring the needs of their constituency.
We went for a long time without the kind of campaign spending we have now. Politicians go out asking for the bribes with the excuse that they need to counter the opposition spending. Take away the source of money and it all goes away. Sure, we’re going to get some rich guys with money to burn running for president, but there aren’t many who will spend like that to get a job in congress. You get other people to pay for your congressional campaign so you can get rich.
It’s a very simple system. The politician takes the money, knowing if he doesn’t serve his sponsor then he won’t get any more money, and his opponents will.