# 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:** 3
**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, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/41 "2018-03-23T21:49:56Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > 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? Really. So I could walk up to you and said, _“Shodan, I just threw this really big party. We had a band and a buffet and an open bar. And I made sure to tell everyone that you were a great guy. It cost me a hundred thousand dollars but it was worth it to me to get that message out.”_ Or I could walk up to you and say, _“Hey, Shodan, I think you’re a great guy. Here’s a hundred thousand dollars.”_ And as far as you’re concerned, those two are equal? You’d be equally happy either way? ---
**Author:** ![Batano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b487fb/32.png) [@Batano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Batano)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2018, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/42 "2018-03-24T19:08:53Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > 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. It doesn’t force stations to run.more ads, it makes them charge double for ads so that they can give equal time to the opposition. If a campaign paid 1 million dollars for 1000 minutes of ads in the past they’d now get 500 minutes for that same price and the opposition would also get 500 hours. If anything, we should get less advertising because candidates know they get less benefit. We want candidates to get a “free ride”, that means they aren’t indebted to big money contributors. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2018, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/43 "2018-03-24T20:09:06Z")
> [@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. > So why? Why is political corruption legal? IS it as simple of an answer that a lot of people are corrupt so they made it legal for them to be corrupt? > **[Poisoning the well](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well)** > > Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864). > Poisoning the well can take the form of an (explicit or impl... Why not read this document some time: > **[First Amendment to the United States Constitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)** > > The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws respecting an establishment of religion; prohibiting the free exercise of religion; or abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights. > The Bill of Rights was proposed to assuage Ant... _Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances._ ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2018, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/44 "2018-03-27T13:51:46Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Really. > > So I could walk up to you and said, _“Shodan, I just threw this really big party. We had a band and a buffet and an open bar. And I made sure to tell everyone that you were a great guy. It cost me a hundred thousand dollars but it was worth it to me to get that message out.”_ > > Or I could walk up to you and say, _“Hey, Shodan, I think you’re a great guy. Here’s a hundred thousand dollars.”_ > > And as far as you’re concerned, those two are equal? You’d be equally happy either way? We don’t need to use analogies. I spend $100K to get you elected. I give you $100K to get you elected. How are you more indebted to me in either case? 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 27, 2018, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/45 "2018-03-27T14:31:59Z")
> [@Batano](#): > > It doesn’t force stations to run.more ads, it makes them charge double for ads so that they can give equal time to the opposition. If a campaign paid 1 million dollars for 1000 minutes of ads in the past they’d now get 500 minutes for that same price and the opposition would also get 500 hours. If anything, we should get less advertising because candidates know they get less benefit. > > We want candidates to get a “free ride”, that means they aren’t indebted to big money contributors. But only the first one up will pay those fees, and that sure as hell won’t be the incumbent who gets free publicity via press conferences, publicity stunts and the like. Not only will the challenger have to foot the bill, but the incumbent can use the opportunity to get even more _free_ publicity from the stations. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2018, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/46 "2018-03-27T16:44:25Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Why not read this document some time: > [First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) > > _Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances._ Article Two, Section Four of the United States Constitution : “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, **Bribery,** or other High crimes and Misdemeanors.” Consider the following situation. Megacorps lobbyist contacts Congressman Smud and indicates Megacorp’s support of the “legalize indentured servitude bill” which he hopes Smud will support. The next day Smud indicates his support for the bill as a necessary step to grow the economy. Since Megacorp sees Smud is on their side the spend $100 million dollars in advertising explaining how Smud single handedly saved saved every citizen from destitution while his opponent molests cats for a living. Next year Smud goes ahead and votes for the indentured servitude bill., and the lobbists come back and mention that Megacorp’s interest in a bill to subsidize the production of soylent green from indentured servants. Now its pretty clear that if Smud supports and votes for the bill he gets another 100 million in campaign support that he won’t get if he rejects the bill. To me that means that Megacorp pays him 100 million to support the bill, which is the definition of bribery, but to others all that happened was everyone exercising their free speech rights that happened by pure coincidence to exactly match what would have occurred if Megacorp came out and paid Smud for his vote. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2018, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/47 "2018-03-27T18:15:28Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Article Two, Section Four of the United States Constitution : “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, **Bribery,** or other High crimes and Misdemeanors.” > Consider the following situation. > > Megacorps lobbyist contacts Congressman Smud and indicates Megacorp’s support of the “legalize indentured servitude bill” which he hopes Smud will support. > > The next day Smud indicates his support for the bill as a necessary step to grow the economy. > > Since Megacorp sees Smud is on their side the spend $100 million dollars in advertising explaining how Smud single handedly saved saved every citizen from destitution while his opponent molests cats for a living. > Now its pretty clear that if Smud supports and votes for the bill he gets another 100 million in campaign support that he won’t get if he rejects the bill. To me that means that Megacorp pays him 100 million to support the bill, which is the definition of bribery, but to others all that happened was everyone exercising their free speech rights that happened by pure coincidence to exactly match what would have occurred if Megacorp came out and paid Smud for his vote. What you’re going to have to show is that Smud wouldnt have supported the bill without the contribution. However, in general, the courts have disagreed that this sort of thing is bribery. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2018, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/48 "2018-03-27T18:28:39Z")
Elections aren’t the only problem, there is the fact that a lot of politicians pass and support laws that benefit industry XYZ so they can get 6, 7 and 8 figure jobs after they retire from politics. Pass laws helping the oil companies, then get a 7 figure consulting job after leaving office. Something needs to be done about that. Right now they have temporary bans of maybe 2-5 years after leaving office, but I don’t know how much it helps. ---
**Author:** ![Batano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b487fb/32.png) [@Batano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Batano)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2018, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/49 "2018-03-28T05:42:03Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > But only the first one up will pay those fees, and that sure as hell won’t be the incumbent who gets free publicity via press conferences, publicity stunts and the like. Not only will the challenger have to foot the bill, but the incumbent can use the opportunity to get even more _free_ publicity from the stations. But today the incumbent also gets more donations which buy access to him and make him endebted to groyps with deep pockets. Maybe we can eliminate the arms race of donations and political ads and go back to when it was door to door canvassing and other efforts of volunteers that mattered. Newspapers and TV will still cover speeches, press conferences, and demonstrations. Look at the coverage the Parkland kids got without having to buy ads. ---
**Author:** ![Batano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b487fb/32.png) [@Batano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Batano)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2018, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/50 "2018-03-28T05:48:44Z")
Continuing thread from above. This chart shows that incumbents out raise challengers more than 5 to 1. [https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/incumbs.php?cycle=2014&party=S&type=A](https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/incumbs.php?cycle=2014&party=S&type=A) ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2018, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/51 "2018-03-28T12:46:59Z")
> [@Batano](#): > > Newspapers and TV will still cover speeches, press conferences, and demonstrations. Look at the coverage the Parkland kids got without having to buy ads. I hope [you don’t think that setting up demonstrations and marches](https://www.npr.org/2018/03/26/596973924/-march-for-our-lives-cost-5-million-several-million-left-for-lobbying) is free. Are politicians who benefit from the lobbying the #Neveragain is going to do beholden to that group? Is that corruption? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2018, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/52 "2018-03-28T14:16:42Z")
> [@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. > > What is the justification for this? Because politicians need money to run campaigns this day and age? Well then why do we allow them to take so much more money than that? If I give a speech for 10 million dollars to someone who donated 50 million dollars to my campaign, isn’t that the same as that person giving me 60 million dollars to keep their interests in mind? There’s no way people honestly thought this wouldn’t create conflicts of interest where politicians are more interested in protecting their donors interests than those of their people. > > So why? Why is political corruption legal? IS it as simple of an answer that a lot of people are corrupt so they made it legal for them to be corrupt? I don’t understand your complaint. I, an individual, want Person X to be my city councilman, because she says she’ll repair roads (including the poor excuse for tarmac running in front of my house). So I donate $1000 to her campaign to help her get elected. Because a few like-minded citizens agree with me, she gets sufficient funds to help her win the election. Then, not shockingly, she votes to repair roads, and my road gets repaired, and I’m quite happy. Jones, Inc., a corporation, wants Person Y to become a congresscritter, because he says he’ll support a tax structure which, if implemented, will save Jones, Inc. money. Jones, Inc. therefore donates $1M to the campaign effort on behalf of Person Y. Because a few like-minded corporations agree with Jones, Inc., Person Y gets sufficient funds to help him get elected. Then, not shockingly, he votes to implement the indicated tax structure, and Jones, Inc. saves money, and is quite happy. There is no difference between these two scenarios. The only difference between what I’ve described, and what you described, is that you make the underlying assumption that the person elected will do the bidding of the persons or corporations which donated to them. But in most (virtually all, really) cases, there’s little indication that this is what really happens. Instead, what happens is that a person who already is politically/ideologically aligned with the interests of the donators is chosen for the donations for that very reason. Once they are elected, they do what they do not because people who donated say, “Do this, please”, where they would not do that had the donations not been made. Rather, they do what they do because they would do it anyway, and the only relationship between their actions and the donors is that the donors might alert them to issues the donors consider important, and those might get worked on earlier than they otherwise would have. That’s not corruption, absent clear evidence of _quid pro quo_. ---
**Author:** ![Batano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b487fb/32.png) [@Batano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Batano)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2018, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/53 "2018-03-28T14:22:12Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I hope [you don’t think that setting up demonstrations and marches](https://www.npr.org/2018/03/26/596973924/-march-for-our-lives-cost-5-million-several-million-left-for-lobbying) is free. > > Are politicians who benefit from the lobbying the #Neveragain is going to do beholden to that group? Is that corruption? > > Regards, > Shodan I would say no, it’s not corruption. Do you think it is? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2018, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/54 "2018-03-28T14:26:32Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > There is no difference between these two scenarios. Except for the repair of roads being a public good that benefits everyone, while the awarding of tax breaks to a company shifts its burden to those less able to pay. One is a responsible action by responsible public servants in the furtherance of the public good, the other is the opposite. It’s only hard to spot corruption if you don’t want to. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2018, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/55 "2018-03-28T18:09:07Z")
> [@Batano](#): > > I would say no, it’s not corruption. Do you think it is? No, I don’t. The OP apparently disagrees. You said > [@](#): > > But today the incumbent also gets more donations which buy access to him and make him endebted to groyps with deep pockets. The recent march is a group with deep pockets. Are the incumbents therefore indebted to them if they lobby on his behalf? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2018, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/56 "2018-03-28T18:13:10Z")
The recent march is \*against \*a group with deep pockets. ---
**Author:** ![Batano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b487fb/32.png) [@Batano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Batano)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2018, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/57 "2018-03-28T22:31:17Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The recent march is a group with deep pockets You misspelled bullet wound ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2018, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/58 "2018-03-29T12:22:58Z")
Do you have any substantive response? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2018, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/59 "2018-03-29T12:37:36Z")
Is there a substantive statement to respond to? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2018, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989/60 "2018-03-29T13:57:19Z")
Yes, there is. Read the thread and get back to us. Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justifications-for-legal-corruption-in-america/810989.md?page=4)