Slashdot Mirror
Did Internet Sales Tax Backers Bribe Congress? (Video)
This may be a coincidence, but according to MapLight, Senators who voted last week for the bill allowing states to directly collect taxes on sales via the Internet, AKA The Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013, received 40 times as much campaign donation money (yes, that's four-oh, not just four) from businesses in favor of the bill as those who voted against it received from businesses that were against Internet sales taxes. Was this bribery? Of course not! We're not some piddly fifth-world country. But it's a prime example of how money influences politics here in the good old USA, and it's far from the only one we've seen lately. In this video, MapLight Program Director Jay Costa shares a bunch more with us, along with tips on how to spot this sort of thing and some steps we voters can take to fight against both direct and indirect influence-buying. Note that all this is totally non-partisan; the politicians with the most influence -- whether local, state or federal -- get most of the available special interest money no matter what other agenda(s) they may have. And for those who want to learn more about who is spending their dollars to influence your representatives, Jay also suggests a look at these two money-in-politics resources: FollowTheMoney.org and OpenSecrets.org.
Now, now, nobody puts themselves in charge of their own PAC. They don't have time for that. But their wife, brothers, sisters, cousins and top donors all have very important jobs to do and are paid top salaries to make sure they're not poached to some other PAC.
I paid for
You don't seem to realise that that's the point at which you crossed the line into bribery. Politicians should be influenced by what their constituents say, not how much they can pay.
Policy shouldn't be about what gives them the biggest pot of funds for re-election.
It would be pretty starling if you weren't allowed to exercise these rights in concert, for example by assembling into a corporation and lobbying or contributing to a campaign.
It wouldn't be startling at all. The fact that corporations can exist is only due to laws that permit them to exist. It's also well established that it's perfectly reasonable to limit what corporations can do. For example, in Nebraska farms can't be corporately owned or run.
In the early days of the Republic corporations were severely restricted. They could only be created by a special act of the legislature, and the corporate charter had to be narrow and specific about what business the corporation could conduct. For example, corporations were sometimes created to build and run turnpikes (toll roads). They couldn't decide later that they also wanted to get into the river boat business. And the corporate charters required periodic renewal (typically 5-10 years). Nor was that an empty threat. Corporations that didn't operate in the public interest could and did have their charters revoked.
The general laws of incorporation, which permit the existence of modern corporations, which don't require approval of the legislature, may engage in any business and have unlimited lifetime, dates only to the mid-19th century. It's hardly an ancient property right. The general laws of incorporation were passed in order to make it easier to create the sort of capital intensive businesses that the industrial revolution spawned. The limited liability aspect (a blatant violation of ancient property rights) was added in order to attract large numbers of investors, most of which did not have sufficient shares to exert much control. Basically they changed property rights that had existed in the common law for centuries in order to facilitate modern businesses. By itself that was a good idea, but never forget that corporations are entirely artificial creations of the law, and so can be limited by the law as seen fit.
Somehow corporations are citizens these days.
I realize that is the meme popularized in the media. However if you actually read the Citizens United decision it says something different:
(1) Groups of people have the same rights as individuals.
(2) It does not matter if that group of people is a corporation, trade union, advocacy group, etc.
The CEO, or who ever was involved in committing a crime should go to prison just like any other citizen.
They do. Here's a top ten list, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/18/top-10-ceos-sent-to-prison_n_1527361.html.
"Money out of politics instantly"...I think you seriously underestimate how much money is involved. Our lawmakers get rich via indirect payments too. Campaign funding isn't even the worst problem. That gets spent by the campaign. Personal windfalls to the lawmaker don't though, so there is a long list of those too. The circle works like this:
-Company tells Congressman they want to build a new office in an area, but it needs rezoning and better roads to the location.
-Congressman purchases real estate in the area.
-The road construction and rezoning are pitched and passed as something that will bring new jobs to the area. Taxpayers foot the bill.
-Real estate prices along road increase, both due to improved transport there and due to the company buying up land there.
-Congressman sells the land at a hefty profit.
Throw Them All Out has a 20 page chapter just on real estate deals with this basic structure. They might instead nudge the path of construction toward property they already own, but the basic flow is the same. No one step of this is illegal, and the more sophisticated politicians further mask their involvement via shell companies or relatives.
There's dozens of variations on this theme. A lot of them involve stock trades. Congress didn't even try to act like they weren't doing insider trading until last year's STOCK act. All that is happening there is that the scheme have added a level of indirection so they're less obvious.
The revolving door approach works too. Give a company some breaks while you're in office, and then they provide you a hefty salary when you return to private work. Work privately for a few years, fill your piggy bank, and then return to another public position; repeat. That one is why the SEC doesn't do anything useful about insider trading at the major trading firms. Too many of its lawyers get hired by the same companies they should be prosecuting. Would you prosecute a company that offers you a big starting bonus in a few years if you just quietly avoid investigating them today? If you don't have a problem with that, why are you reading Slashdot--you should be working on your campaign instead.
Bribery is not freedom of speech. What we have is corruption that has gone all the way to the top, the SCOTUS with their treasonous "Citizen's United Ruling". We have to cut this cancer from the body government before it kills it.
Take the Red Pill.