# The Supreme Court may be considering the legalization of bribery **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 4, 2016, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877 "2016-05-04T12:45:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/121 "2016-05-09T16:13:06Z")
Well, for starters, you two lovebirds should just stab and make up. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/122 "2016-05-09T16:15:53Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, for starters, you two lovebirds should just stab and make up. Or someone should try to have a substantive discussion instead of using insults to desperately avoid it. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/123 "2016-05-09T16:18:32Z")
The you start. Provide some straw-free substance. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/124 "2016-05-09T16:23:19Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > The you start. Provide some straw-free substance. You show me what I’ve posted that you think is a straw man, and WHY you think so. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/125 "2016-05-09T16:29:11Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I know this is the pit and you can get away with stupid shit but that doesn’t mean you should. > > Wolfpup can’t muster a response to any of my posts. Can you? What say you about #113? > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > … And it’s funny that you focus on me while ignoring the gallon of spittle coming from Wolfpup in the first place. Here’s the thing, **lance** , old chap. These issues have all been extensively discussed, for example [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=782325) and [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=783495) and [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=790317). Why are you still discussing them? Because, **lance** , old boy, you keep [repeating the same crap over and over again](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19084607&postcount=13) as if it was a brand new idea of astonishing brilliance instead of a tedious repetition by a deranged zealot with a serious case of Alzheimer’s, and it’s crap that never made any sense the first time. You make flat-out dogmatic pontifications as if prior court rulings affirming spending limits never happened, as if the progressive dissenting justices in recent cases never existed, as if their arguments aren’t even worth acknowledging, as if no one else’s arguments except yours have any merit, as if the deleterious effects of unconstrained political spending haven’t been extensively documented for decades in studies and books. You seem to believe the Constitution is some kind of religion for its own sake instead of an instrument for social good in the service of the people. There’s no point in debating with you. I don’t waste my time debating politics with my dog, either, and it’s not because I’m afraid he might win. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/126 "2016-05-09T16:33:43Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > You show me what I’ve posted that you think is a straw man, and WHY you think so. Well, we could start with post #113 of which you are so proud. There is absolutely nothing there but noise. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/127 "2016-05-09T16:59:27Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Here’s the thing, **lance** , old chap. These issues have all been extensively discussed, for example [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=782325) and [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=783495) and [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=790317). Why are you still discussing them? Because, **lance** , old boy, you keep [repeating the same crap over and over again](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19084607&postcount=13) as if it was a brand new idea of astonishing brilliance instead of a tedious repetition by a deranged zealot with a serious case of Alzheimer’s So far, the same can be said for you too. So we’re even. > [@](#): > > , and it’s crap that never made any sense the first time. Again, I say your crap made no sense the first time. And now, after declaring that we’ve already discussed it and you were right all along and you definitely aren’t going to discuss it with me, you do: > [@](#): > You make flat-out dogmatic pontifications as if prior court rulings affirming spending limits never happened, [/QUOTE] Never said that, and it doesn’t matter anyway. > [@](#): > > as if the progressive dissenting justices in recent cases never existed, What stupid rubbish. Of course they existed. So what? They were wrong. > [@](#): > > as if their arguments aren’t even worth acknowledging, No, that’s YOU doing that to ME, genius. > [@](#): > > as if no one else’s arguments except yours have any merit, Oh my God! You mean, I think I’m right? Good thing you’re not like that. > [@](#): > > as if the deleterious effects of unconstrained political spending haven’t been extensively documented for decades in studies and books. Plenty of people have tried to justify violations of the Constitution or civil rights with “extensive documentation.” So what? You still can’t do it. > [@](#): > > You seem to believe the Constitution is some kind of religion for its own sake instead of an instrument for social good in the service of the people. You seem to think the Contsitution is toilet paper you can just ignore when you feel like it. > [@](#): > > There’s no point in debating with you. I don’t waste my time debating politics with my dog, either, and it’s not because I’m afraid he might win. You’re right, there’s no point in you debating me, because you’ve already lost. So why are you even talking to me? Live up to your boasts and ignore me. You’re just like any other two-bit dictator who decides you know better than the people so you can, for their own good, of course, meddle with freedom of speech. That answer is no. You may not. Get over it. The First Amendment protects us from people like you. The Founding Fathers feared YOU when writing it. You also can’t just bully and insult your way through a discussion like this. It doesn’t surprise me that you think you can, but you can’t. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/128 "2016-05-09T17:00:31Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > Well, we could start with post #113 of which you are so proud. There is absolutely nothing there but noise. Why do you think so? Explain. Do you think those scenarios are okay too? Or do you think they are somehow different from the one we’re discussing? Go ahead and actually make an argument. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/129 "2016-05-09T17:17:08Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > Well, we could start with post #113 of which you are so proud. There is absolutely nothing there but noise. P.S. Not sure how you can declare it to be a straw man or “noise” given that I included pretty much the ACTUAL FACTS of the Citizens United case right there in my examples: > [@](#): > > Could the government ban the creation or promotion of a political film - not the film itself, just spending any money to make it? After all, it’s just not fair that only people with the money to make political films have more influence than the rest of us. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/130 "2016-05-09T21:59:48Z")
Where’d you go? ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2016, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/131 "2016-05-10T02:21:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Oh, good – another chance for septimus to display his finely honed legal analytical skills. And his indignation! He might not exactly know the “law,” but by gosh, he has Morals! And bribery is Bad! Because of Morals! \*\*Bricker \*\*here is a cautionary tale of the risks of First Amendment absolutism. Once a clever barrister, now an advocate of absolute political corruption. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2016, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/132 "2016-05-10T02:34:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Bribery is not fine. But convicting person under a law that fails to define criminal conduct correctly is not fine, either. > > Are you one of those people that hears a burglar was not convicted because the evidence against him was illegally seized and replies, “So I guess we’re in favor of burglary now?” A lot of Americans are “those people.” These bleeding-heart liberals are easy pickings, and thus their age is ending. But the backlash against anything-goes corruption will be moralistic & authoritarian. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2016, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/133 "2016-05-10T05:00:23Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > The fundamental issue with “money is speech” is that some folks have ready access to more of it than do others. If _everyone_ is constrained to a fixed amount, and no one may borrow someone else’s unused credit, that is more like equitable freedom of speech than a case where billionaires have greater access to the soap box just by buying it. Can you kindly point out where exactly in the constitution it states that freedom of speech is a fundamental right only as long as it is equitable? Slee ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2016, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/134 "2016-05-10T05:39:08Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > Can you kindly point out where exactly in the constitution it states that freedom of speech is a fundamental right only as long as it is equitable? > > Slee When you point to where I suggested or implied that is does _in my reply to a hypothetical_. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2016, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/135 "2016-05-10T11:24:45Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > \*\*Bricker \*\*here is a cautionary tale of the risks of First Amendment absolutism. Once a clever barrister, now an advocate of absolute political corruption. It’s simply absurd to say that speech can be corruption. The concept of speech being corrupt because it has value to a candidate could easily extend beyond money. Should we limit the ability of labor unions to organize volunteers to speak on behalf of candidates door to door? That’s certainly something of value to the candidate - paying for the work would cost thousands of dollars. Should prominent political figures or celebrities be limited in their speech in favor of a candidate? Their speech attracts more attention and is therefore of more value to a candidate. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2016, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/136 "2016-05-10T11:26:08Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > When you point to where I suggested or implied that is does _in my reply to a hypothetical_. Still waiting for you to respond to my hypotheticals in #113. Oh, and the one that’s the actual facts of the CU decision too. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2016, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/137 "2016-05-10T11:33:03Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > The fundamental issue with “money is speech” is that some folks have ready access to more of it than do others. If _everyone_ is constrained to a fixed amount, and no one may borrow someone else’s unused credit, that is more like equitable freedom of speech than a case where billionaires have greater access to the soap box just by buying it. What about freedom of the press? Shouldn’t we be rationing how much access rich corporations have to print newspapers and broadcast on the airwayes? They can say whatever they want all day long with no limits. They can openly endorse candidates and produce highly biased opinions, or let others do it. The average citizen doesn’t own a newspaper or TV news station. So shouldn’t we be limiting the media in the same way? After all, the guys who run ads are simply renting time in 30-second increments on TV. What if the Kochs just went and bought their own TV station and broadcast their opinions all day? Why is that any different? Why are they corrupt, but Murdoch and Fox News get a pass? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2016, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/138 "2016-05-10T16:05:31Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > A lot of Americans are “those people.” So what? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2016, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/139 "2016-05-10T18:33:51Z")
So, I expect that the people in charge of protecting me should follow the rules. Or I would expect that if I didn’t know better. And the legislature crafted rules about bribery that are essentially unenforceable? So, which is it, they are really that dumb or really that smart? ---
**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:** [May 10, 2016, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/140 "2016-05-10T19:30:57Z")
I have worked for a few large corporations. When I was oriented in those corporations, they had me spend quite a bit of time learning what types of gifts I could receive, under what circumstances, and when it needed to be reported. I was not really in a position to be taking gifts as bribes, as I was among the lowest ranks, but the rules were put in place largely in relation to the upper management and VP’s. What is the real difference between upper management of a large corporation, and politicians? Why can the govt not adopt a version of those rules for itself? I do not say it is easy to tell when the line has been crossed into corruption, but others have found it, pointed it out, and told their employees not to cross it. Is there a good reason as to why this model cannot be adopted to politicians? (Other than the obvious practicality of getting politicians to vote for something that will limit their own power.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877.md?page=8)