# Justifications for legal corruption in America? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 21, 2018, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989 "2018-03-21T20:34:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**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:** [March 22, 2018, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/21 "2018-03-22T11:53:00Z")
That’s a uniquely terrible idea. Airtime is a finite resource, and anyone who uses it ought to pay for it. The problem is that we have a terrible system for figuring out how to raise the funds to pay for it. Plus the unintended consequences ought to be obvious if one thinks about it for a few moments. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2018, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/22 "2018-03-22T12:28:42Z")
> [@Barack\_Obama](#): > > I’m talking about political bribery. Companies paying organizations to donate to political campaigns to get a favorable person in office who will look out for the interests of those who donated the most to him. It’s not corruption because it’s out in the open. Political donations are declared. The corruption happens afterwards, when those companies get preferential treatment. Here in the UK, MPs have to file all their interests in a register. So anyone can check. ---
**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:** [March 22, 2018, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/23 "2018-03-22T15:34:43Z")
> [@Batano](#): > > Here is my modest proposal. Any media outlet that sells ads to a political campaign must provide equal amount of unpaid ads to the opposition. Spend as much as you want, just know that the other side will get their say as well. What a great idea! I let my opponent pay for his ads, and I get mine for free! :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2018, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/24 "2018-03-22T16:16:13Z")
Isn’t the purpose of democracy to give people with interests ways to assert those interests in government? If it is okay for people to make speeches or publish books and papers advocating for political positions why shouldn’t it be okay to pay other people to make speeches or publish things advocating for political positions? ---
**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:** [March 22, 2018, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/25 "2018-03-22T18:47:06Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Isn’t the purpose of democracy to give people with interests ways to assert those interests in government? If it is okay for people to make speeches or publish books and papers advocating for political positions why shouldn’t it be okay to pay other people to make speeches or publish things advocating for political positions? There’s a vast difference between expressing a view to the general public via books and speeches and handing money to a government official. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2018, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/26 "2018-03-22T20:07:35Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > There’s a vast difference between expressing a view to the general public via books and speeches and handing money to a government official. Could you be more specific? Is there a difference between bribery and donating to a campaign? How about if you don’t give the candidate the money, but spend it on their behalf, because you agree with their positions and/or believe they will better represent your interests? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![DavidwithanR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2018, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/27 "2018-03-22T22:07:07Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Could you be more specific? Is there a difference between bribery and donating to a campaign? How about if you don’t give the candidate the money, but spend it on their behalf, because you agree with their positions and/or believe they will better represent your interests? In the current system, making a bigger donation than someone else did has exactly the same effect as voting (in the same election) more times than he did. Multiple voting is against the law because it skews the election. Donating more to political campaigns than another person did should also therefore be illegal. In addition, money is used to skew the legislative process after the election is over, by influencing the results on individual bills. There’s nothing wrong with having an influence on those results either - as long as (again) every citizen’s available amount of influence is equal. So either you outlaw donations altogether (which doesn’t make sense to me), or you give every eligible voter an equal political donation credit that can’t be used any other way; and in both cases you outlaw corporate and group donations because a group is not an eligible voter. People getting together in groups to try to influence policy is not a problem; people spending money on those groups IS a problem, because in a capitalist democracy, money donated in support of politics equals extra votes. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2018, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/28 "2018-03-22T23:44:42Z")
> [@DavidwithanR](#): > > because in a capitalist democracy, money donated in support of politics equals extra votes. And that is simply not true: money donated in support of politics gives the **opportunity** for extra votes. It’s an important distinction. You still have to convince people. ---
**Author:** ![Textual\_Innuendo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/898d66/32.png) [@Textual\_Innuendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Textual_Innuendo)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2018, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/29 "2018-03-23T01:59:03Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > And that is simply not true: money donated in support of politics gives the **opportunity** for extra votes. It’s an important distinction. You still have to convince people. I think this is a specious distinction - we are rapidly approaching a time when organizations with enough money will be able to not only individually profile your every fear, doubt, inclination, and hot-button issue, but with the help of advanced models will have a suite of different messages in different channels tailored towards those that will nudge you in a hundred different ways into voting the way they want, with most such influences subconscious. We have intimations of the nascent form of this with the Cambridge Analytica thing - it is only going to get more advanced and individually tailored, particularly when you consider presidential campaigns routinely top $2 billion, and congressional elections collectively topping $4 billion. I’m usually the last to scaremonger about predictive analytics and individually tailored marketing, but with the stakes and the amounts of money in these campaigns (which is only increasing), coupled with the amount of information various organizations have at the individual person level (also only increasing), this is basically inevitable. So yes, at this level money WILL equal votes, to a very predictable and likely relatively small margin of error, because the science of “convincing” advances every day, and the amount of information available to individually tailor that science also increases every day. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2018, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/30 "2018-03-23T02:24:14Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > And that is simply not true: money donated in support of politics gives the **opportunity** for extra votes. It’s an important distinction. You still have to convince people. This is true. However, in reality, a politician needs to have a certain amount of money or they won’t be re-elected. Each marginal dollar has less of an effect, though. If the first donor/briber special interest comes in and offer a politician with an empty reelection account a million bucks, they have a lot of clout. Once a politician is an incumbent in a safe district they basically don’t need the money. So it’s more that money buys a lot of influence but isn’t guaranteed to matter. Which is actually about the same with bribes. If you try to bribe a policeman in Mexico, you may not always succeed. Sometimes the cop is honest or thinks it’s a setup and will just arrest you anyway. But on the aggregate, your probability of success is much better if you can make big bribes. I mean these days, the oil companies, who only hire a small percentage of Americans, have convinced something like 30-40% of the population that climate change is a lie made up by \ ---
**Author:** ![Batano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b487fb/32.png) [@Batano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Batano)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2018, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/31 "2018-03-23T07:48:40Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > What a great idea! I let my opponent pay for his ads, and I get mine for free! > > :rolleyes: Why the roll eyes? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2018, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/32 "2018-03-23T09:03:05Z")
If you can’t stop criminality, legalizing it allows one to regulate it. See: Cigarettes, booze, gambling, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2018, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/33 "2018-03-23T11:44:36Z")
> [@DavidwithanR](#): > > In the current system, making a bigger donation than someone else did has exactly the same effect as voting (in the same election) more times than he did. No it doesn’t. Hillary outspent Trump by nearly two to one ([cite](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/04/14/somebody-just-put-a-price-tag-on-the-2016-election-its-a-doozy/)), but she didn’t get twice as many votes as he did. Read the [Freakonomics](http://freakonomics.com/2012/01/17/how-much-does-campaign-spending-influence-the-election-a-freakonomics-quorum/)analysis on the effects of campaign spending on elections. Regards, Shodan ---
**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:** [March 23, 2018, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/34 "2018-03-23T14:47:40Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No it doesn’t. Hillary outspent Trump by nearly two to one ([cite](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/04/14/somebody-just-put-a-price-tag-on-the-2016-election-its-a-doozy/)), but she didn’t get twice as many votes as he did. Nor would you expect her to; campaign funds are not evenly distributed, but overwhelmingly spent on trying to win a very specific set of votes. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2018, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/35 "2018-03-23T15:01:25Z")
The point being that this statement > [@](#): > > making a bigger donation than someone else did has exactly the same effect as voting (in the same election) more times than he did is wrong. And another point is that campaign _donations_ are not evenly distributed either - a lot of them go to the guy you think is going to win anyway. Regards, Shodan ---
**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:** [March 23, 2018, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/36 "2018-03-23T15:12:11Z")
> [@Batano](#): > > Why the roll eyes? It’s a stupid idea. It gives a free ride to one or more sides(depending on how many are running for office), it forces stations to give up valuable ad time that supports the shows you like to watch, and it gives a distinct advantage to incumbents who are already in the news without having to pay for the privilege. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2018, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/37 "2018-03-23T17:41:21Z")
> [@Textual\_Innuendo](#): > > I think this is a specious distinction - we are rapidly approaching a time when organizations with enough money will be able to not only individually profile your every fear, doubt, inclination, and hot-button issue, but with the help of advanced models will have a suite of different messages in different channels tailored towards those that will nudge you in a hundred different ways into voting the way they want, with most such influences subconscious. > > We have intimations of the nascent form of this with the Cambridge Analytica thing - it is only going to get more advanced and individually tailored, particularly when you consider presidential campaigns routinely top $2 billion, and congressional elections collectively topping $4 billion. > > I’m usually the last to scaremonger about predictive analytics and individually tailored marketing, but with the stakes and the amounts of money in these campaigns (which is only increasing), coupled with the amount of information various organizations have at the individual person level (also only increasing), this is basically inevitable. > > So yes, at this level money WILL equal votes, to a very predictable and likely relatively small margin of error, because the science of “convincing” advances every day, and the amount of information available to individually tailor that science also increases every day. Currently this is a fantasy. Web and social media ads are very cheap because they are almost worthless. The average effect of political spending on campaign advertising is around [zero](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/09/campaigns-direct-mail-zero-effect/541485/). Facebook has had several expensive flops, Facebook email, Facebook Deals, Facebook Home, and Facebook Gifts. If Facebook can’t even get people to use its own products why should we believe they have a magic power to get people to vote how they want? ---
**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:** [March 23, 2018, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/38 "2018-03-23T18:00:39Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Could you be more specific? Is there a difference between bribery and donating to a campaign? How about if you don’t give the candidate the money, but spend it on their behalf, because you agree with their positions and/or believe they will better represent your interests? In my opinion, there’s a major difference. Freedom of speech covers all of the stuff you can do change public opinions; give speeches, publish books, write editorials in the newspaper, film a documentary. Your goal here is to change public opinion and therefore affect the way people vote. By affecting the way people vote, you change who is in the government. The other way is when you essentially choose to bypass the voters. You give something to the government officials instead, either directly or indirectly. It can be something that’s defined as legal, like a campaign contribution, or something that’s defined as illegal, like a bribe. But the point is you’re influencing the government official not the voters. And by bypassing the voters, you’re bypassing the basic pillar of how democracy works. Should all such activity be prohibited? No, I think there is an acceptable amount. If you to donate a hundred dollars to Donald Trump’s re-election campaign, that’s okay. But I strongly disagree that these activities should be open-ended, as they currently are. We have gone far past the point of what I would consider reasonable. There are people giving hundreds of millions not hundreds. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2018, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/39 "2018-03-23T18:55:11Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > In my opinion, there’s a major difference. Freedom of speech covers all of the stuff you can do change public opinions; give speeches, publish books, write editorials in the newspaper, film a documentary. Your goal here is to change public opinion and therefore affect the way people vote. By affecting the way people vote, you change who is in the government. > > The other way is when you essentially choose to bypass the voters. You give something to the government officials instead, either directly or indirectly. It can be something that’s defined as legal, like a campaign contribution, or something that’s defined as illegal, like a bribe. But the point is you’re influencing the government official not the voters. And by bypassing the voters, you’re bypassing the basic pillar of how democracy works. Campaign contributions don’t bypass the voters. Instead of spending the money yourself to affect public opinion on who to vote for, you give it to a candidate, or a party, or a PAC, and they spend it affecting public opinion on who to vote for. The candidate is benefitted in the same way whether I spend the money myself, or if he spends it, or if a PAC spends it. People are influenced to vote one way or another. Plus, as ever, I don’t see why if I can spend as much as I want to push for my candidate, why can I give as much as I want to my candidate to get him elected? Regards, Shodan ---
**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:** [March 23, 2018, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/40 "2018-03-23T19:00:15Z")
Because of the distinct possibility that he will actually become _your_ candidate, beholden to to those are most responsible for his election. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989.md?page=3)