Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Did Internet Sales Tax Backers Bribe Congress? (Video)

Posted by Roblimo on from the money-and-politics-have-an-irresistable-attraction-for-each-other dept.

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.

53 of 317 comments (clear)

  1. Is it bribery? by gameboyhippo · · Score: 2

    Is it bribery or do companies donate more money to politicians that agree with their policies?

    1. Re:Is it bribery? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is it bribery or do companies donate more money to politicians that will agree with their policies?

      FTFY

      [ BTW, The answer to both is "yes". ]

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    2. Re:Is it bribery? by MozeeToby · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, there are always two scenarios.

      1) Bribery, in effect if not in the precise definition. Politicians who would have voted against it or who had no defined position received funds in direct or implied exchange for their vote.
      2) Politicians who have a stated position received money from companies who benefit from that position. This is still distasteful in that it gives the people in control of the money a disproportionate say in government but doesn't rise to the same level of immorality.

      So you'd think it would be relatively easy to do an analysis as to which is which. Unfortunately you also have politicians shopping for donations by taking positions which they think will bring them in.

    3. Re: Is it bribery? by gameboyhippo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not following your analogy. If I'm for a position, is it bribery when I donate to a politician that shares my views? So if I were for free municipal Internet access, is it bribery if I donate money to a politician that feels the same? Or am I required to donate to a politician that does not share my views on an issue?

    4. Re:Is it bribery? by gameboyhippo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, you didn't fix that. What I was asking is if I were a Scientologist and voted for politicians who wants to turn Kansas City into a Scientology theocracy, is it a bribe if I donate to him? He didn't change his position. He was already committed to said position.

    5. Re:Is it bribery? by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 2

      It is bribery if the money is not spent on campaigns. When a politician uses the money to buy a house, a car, vacations or clothes then it is bribery. It may also be bribery in other situations. But the above is a good bright line test.

    6. Re:Is it bribery? by rolfwind · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is it bribery or do companies donate more money to politicians that agree with their policies?

      Why should companies and especially corporations be allowed to donate money? Only private citizens should have that right, and I dare say, those in or running for public office should be allowed to take from those they represent.

      Run for Senate in Pennsylvania, the law should be that they accept only from PA citizens. Running to represent district 5 in NY? Please only accept from distric 5 residents. Otherwise we have Senators from Delaware representing Hollywood's interests and not his own constituents. Joe Biden, I'm looking at you.

    7. Re: Is it bribery? by Qzukk · · Score: 3, Funny

      If I'm for a position, is it bribery when I donate to a politician that shares my views?

      Of course not. But I will warn you that when it turns out that the politician you're supporting does something unpopular, you're supporting that too. If you had just bribed them you'd have the excuse of saying "I don't support him I just needed him to vote ___ on S.B. 12345". See also...

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    8. Re:Is it bribery? by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      2) Politicians who have a stated position received money from companies who benefit from that position. This is still distasteful in that it gives the people in control of the money a disproportionate say in government but doesn't rise to the same level of immorality.

      Whew. I'm glad to know that my donation of money to support a candidate that says he will do what I think should be done is only distasteful and somewhat immoral. I was worried that the hope and change I paid for was something I wasn't really entitled to on moral grounds.

    9. Re:Is it bribery? by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Does it matter? Money is a corrupting influence no matter what. The only thing a Senator should concern himself with is the merit of the arguments for and against.

      Donations to public officials should be completely illegal for this reason. Fund campaigns with public money exclusively, and you'll save a lot more than you spend when you reap the benefits of good policy.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    10. Re:Is it bribery? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      This leads to a question: what happens to extra campaign money after the election? Does the guy get to keep it, or what?

      Something to consider... especially if the candidate gets to keep the cash.

      Officially, no. Other than the prohibition on personal use, there are few limitations on how it's spent though. Needless to say, they can become pretty creative. So they can start a PAC with it and put themselves in charge with a nice salary. And yes, of course it was a bribe.

    11. Re:Is it bribery? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    12. Re:Is it bribery? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      Why should companies and especially corporations be allowed to donate money? Only private citizens should have that right,

      Somehow corporations are citizens these days. Or at least when it's convenient for them. In the case of campaign donations, they have the same, or better rights than you or I. However when it comes to criminal liability, they aren't so interested in that aspect of citizenship. I think that if they have the same free speech and campaign donation rights, then they should also have the same responsibility we do when they behave criminally. The CEO, or who ever was involved in committing a crime should go to prison just like any other citizen. Too bad they pay to have the laws work in their favor.

      and I dare say, those in or running for public office should be allowed to take from those they represent.

      Run for Senate in Pennsylvania, the law should be that they accept only from PA citizens. Running to represent district 5 in NY? Please only accept from distric 5 residents. Otherwise we have Senators from Delaware representing Hollywood's interests and not his own constituents. Joe Biden, I'm looking at you.

      How else are these (morally bankrupt) rich bastards going to make more money doing nothing useful to society?

      Support your government, buy a congressman!

    13. Re:Is it bribery? by komodo685 · · Score: 2

      Is it bribery or do companies donate more money to politicians that agree with their policies?

      In this case, and many others, probably bribery.
      On a more general note Lawence Lessig has a good amount to say about reducing corruption in American politics.
      http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html
      I don't remember if he covers it in that talk but somewhere I have heard him give an example where a state(?) imposed a system that judges, when running for election, (yes judges do in some states) could only accept donations under a scheme where

      1. A) they could not see how much money was donated
      2. B) even if told it didn't matter because the donator could withdraw their amount (in some time frame) so it was unverifiable and
      3. C) the donation was spit out to their campaign in random amounts over several bursts combined with other donations, further obscuring donations

      I believe this was eventually cancelled because judges suddenly weren't getting any campaign contributions.
      If someone could give some links to those points I'd appreciate it. I'm just going by a half remembered ted talk and daily show interview.

      Companies/individuals could claim that they were merely supporting the politicians because he/she already believed as they did and not that those companies/individuals were bribing the politicians into a new position, which other commenters have pointed out.
      What seems like a good solution (and I believe is more or less what LL advocates) would be a combination of,

      1. 1) only individuals (human beings) can donate to campaigns,
      2. 2) all contributions must be donated via an anonymous system as above,
      3. 3) the amount a person can donate is not only fixed but in fact paid for by the government from taxes -- each person has the same $$$ to donate.

      To not fix the amount a person can donate at a flat rate, is a triumph for capitalism but a deep wound for democracy. Which do you value more?

    14. Re:Is it bribery? by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      How do you stop someone from running their own commercials in support of a candidate without running smack dab into the first amendment?

    15. Re:Is it bribery? by BasilBrush · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes of course it's bribery. The only way to stop it is to make contributing to campaigns as illegal as accepting brown paper enveloped stuffed with cash.

    16. Re:Is it bribery? by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Political contributions by businesses to politicians are ALWAYS bribes. Period. Businesses expect a return on their investments. Individuals donate to candidates because they feel generally that the candidate will do the right thing in office (or sometimes because they feel their opponent will definitely do the wrong thing) Businesses on the other hand have a very narrow focus, and when they donate to a political figure it's very clear why they are doing that. They want something... and later they will make it clear what that something is. Walmart comes out in favor of some legislation... last election they gave you $50k in donations... voting against this thing they are "Strongly supporting" clearly means what to your next campaign effort? It's pretty easy to do the math.

    17. Re:Is it bribery? by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    18. Re:Is it bribery? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's fine. Let them run all the commercials they want preceded and proceeded with "this commercial sponsored by:"

      Let's see what companies want what and who they are trying to buy. Put it out there on TV.

    19. Re:Is it bribery? by BasilBrush · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It also matters in how the money is spent. Money given to a politician must be spent on his election. If every penny is spent then the only thing the politician gained was the salary of the office he will hold.

      And the power he gains. A politician wants to get elected more than anything.

      If you're in the situation where politicians need big money to be reelected, and they change their policies to suit the rich people and organisations that can fund that reelection, then you're fucked.

      It's what's wrong with American politics. And it is bribery, even if it's not going into the politician's pocket, but only his reelection fund.

      What's needed is to cap funding at a fraction of the level that's allowed now. Or ideally to fund all politicians from a pot of money that's not conditional, and is at the same level for every candidate in a given race.

    20. Re:Is it bribery? by BasilBrush · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While it's an intriguing idea it's impossible in practice. The guys in hollywood will just run the ads on their own without giving the money to the election campaign.

      Impossible? It doesn't happen in Britain. I'm not sure if that's because it's banned or just something that's not done.

      It doesn't have to be allowed to happen in America either. In addition to getting rid of the bribery of politicians, your democracy would be better without PACs doing TV ads. Policies should be discussed and debated intelligently. They shouldn't be left to advertising execs to use their hucksterish advertising on it.

      Not that I'm saying that Britain has it all right either. The newspaper magnates are our greatest enemy of democracy. Rupert Murdoch in particular holds way too much sway, and he's not even British.

    21. Re:Is it bribery? by fnj · · Score: 2

      The same way you always shred the constitution it: just pass a law that defies it. It's done all the time. Many such laws stand.

      Be careful choosing what you wish for: the best government money can buy, or a government that can't be influenced. Door number one and door number two both lead to the hell of corrupt, evil government. Either they are enriched by filthy rich contributors, or the enrich themselves.

    22. Re:Is it bribery? by newcastlejon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Would you also include independent candidates in this? If so, where do you draw the line?

      If you ban campaign contributions entirely (which I would probably support) you would also have to limit the amount of money a candidate is allowed to spend on campaigning, so that the richest candidate doesn't win just because they can afford the best PR. That limit would have to be either very low, so that pretty much anyone could be a candidate, or the state would have to pay. Neither of these seems feasible.

      Bribery, to me, is more about paying someone to do something they shouldn't do, or that person demanding payment to do what they ought to. This might include letting a parking ticket slide, voting against the wishes of those one is supposed to represent or blowing some rich old geezer (I imagine).

      I don't see a problem in supporting the campaign of a candidate whom I believe will do a good job of representing me, though I deplore the need to do so. However, when a business does the same, that's quite different; governments should serve people, not legal fictions. I'd be very much in favour of banning all but private donations, and open to the idea of limiting those severely.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    23. Re:Is it bribery? by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    24. Re:Is it bribery? by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      Allow them to support a side of an issue, but not a specific candidate.

      Except that the first amendment isnt about "allowing" citizens certain types of speech. Its a prohibition against restriction of their speech (except in the exceptions the SCOTUS has ruled on).

      So saying "you cannot publicly endorse this person" seems like it would be a major problem from that standpoint.

    25. Re:Is it bribery? by lightknight · · Score: 2

      “I come in peace,” it said, adding after a long moment of further grinding, “take me to your Lizard.”

                ”It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see”

                “You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?”

                “No,” said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, “nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.”

                “Odd,” said Arthur, “I though you said it was a democracy.”

                “I did,” said Ford. “It is.”

                “So,” said Arthur, hoping he wasn’t sounding ridiculously obtuse, “why don’t the people get rid of the lizards?”

                “It honestly doesn’t occur to them,” said Ford. “They’ve all got the vote so they all pretty much assume that the government they’ve voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.”

                “You mean they actually vote for the lizards?”

                “Oh yes,” said Ford with a shrug, “of course.”

                “But,” said Arthur, going for the big one again, “why?”

                “Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,” said Ford, “the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?”

                “What?”

                “I said,” said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, “have you got any gin?”

                “I’ll look. Tell me about the lizards.”

                Ford shrugged again.

                “Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them,” he said. “They’re completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone’s got to say it.”

      Ganked from: http://www.craigsirk.com/Craigsirk/archives/2005/07/the-hitchhikers-guide-to-the-galaxy.html

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    26. Re:Is it bribery? by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Dude its bribery, if I tell you "I will give you a million dollars because you will vote my way" then you sure as hell ain't gonna bite the hand that feeds by voting a way you know i won't like, will you?

      This is why we don't even have Coke VS Pepsi anymore, but Coke in a can VS Coke in a bottle, because its the same corps paying the bills behind the scenes. why do you think that despite poll after poll saying most Americans are center left that we have only a far right wing and an extreme right wing party to choose from? why do you think Obama stuck with damned near every policy that Dubya had, no matter how hated it was by the left?

      The answer is simple and was illustrated perfectly by the late great Bill Hicks over 20 years ago: "I believe the puppet on the left shares MY beliefs! Well I believe the puppet on the right has MY interests at heart....hey wait a minute, there is one guy working both puppets!". Hell Jessie Ventura said there was no difference between being a politician and being a wrestler, in both cases you don't break kayfabe and pretend to hate the other guy and once the camera quits rolling you are having lunch with the guy.

      I mean why do you think the media practically jumps through flaming hoops to keep shit like gay marriage or religion in schools or some other shit that doesn't even show up in the top ten of most polls as the talking points? Because if they talked about what has been #1 on practically every poll for ages, the economy, why people might start demanding the congress pass laws that a corp might not like. Corps don't give a rat's ass about gay marriage or school prayer so you can talk about those all day long.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    27. Re:Is it bribery? by ultranova · · Score: 2

      That limit would have to be either very low, so that pretty much anyone could be a candidate, or the state would have to pay. Neither of these seems feasible.

      So... What's infeasible in state paying? It's a pretty small investment for fixing the political system.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    28. Re:Is it bribery? by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      You don't seem to realise that that's the point at which you crossed the line into bribery.

      So you really do think that contributing to Obama's campaign for "hope and change" was actual bribery? That is obviously the reference I was making when talking about "hope and change". Thank God I didn't contribute, you'd probably want me to go to prison. But ok, everyone who did donate to Obama should go, I'll agree to that.

    29. Re:Is it bribery? by mjwx · · Score: 2

      Impossible? It doesn't happen in Britain. I'm not sure if that's because it's banned or just something that's not done.

      Well, for one thing the UK doesn't have elections occurring at regular intervals. When one is declared, the campaigns only last for about a month.

      This,

      It probably works the same as it does in Australia.

      The government in power decides exactly when to call an election which can be done any time before the end of their term. They start the process by asking the Governor General (the queens representative) to dissolve parliament, the GG dissolves parliament and the govt goes into caretaker mode (no decisions are made, caretaker mode is just to keep the wheels turning). All the pollies go on the campaign trail for 6 weeks which is mainly comprised of each party slagging off the other with various degrees of accuracy and bile and then we all go and vote.

      There are few other rules (I.E. they cant use the elected office to do campaigning, they have to run their own campaign office) but they dont really campaign before parliament is dissolved. Of course the Opposition leader is always trying to get his name in the news and sling faeces at the ruling party but this isn't really campaigning (OK it is, but it's relatively sedate).

      Also, it's illegal to donate large chunks of cash to a political party, IIRC it's A$2,000 for an individual and A$10,000 for an organisation (club, church, company, etc...).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    30. Re:Is it bribery? by chrismcb · · Score: 2

      last election they gave you $50k in donations... voting against this thing they are "Strongly supporting" clearly means what to your next campaign effort? It's pretty easy to do the math.

      How is that any different than an individual contribution? Other than the fact that corporations can donate larger sums of money, I don't see how it is any different. You said it yourself, an individual donates money because they feel the candidate will do the right thing in office (with "right thing" having varying definitions for different people.) So when the candidates doesn't do the "right thing" the individual will donate money to someone else next time. What is the difference?

    31. Re:Is it bribery? by drsmithy · · Score: 2

      The hard part is deciding what 'appropriate levels' might be for any given political election [...]
      Better to attack it from the sourcing side and let the people decide.
      Campaign contributions should be limited to natural persons, and to a maximum of two weeks worth of full-time minimum wage labour.
      That way good ideas can still attract large amounts of funding, but bad ideas that appeal to a minority of very wealthy individuals cannot.

    32. Re:Is it bribery? by inode_buddha · · Score: 2

      The Lanham act has to do with whether or not corporate officers should be held personally liable for their choices. I think they should, since they seem to want the corporation to have all the rights of a natural person. Therefore they should have all the responsibilities too. Instead of hiding behind the corporate veil.

      Nobody said anything about curtailing speech, unless you truly believe that money equals speech.

      --
      C|N>K
    33. Re:Is it bribery? by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      Because corporations are not people. They're not even controlled by people (generally) they are controlled by the market. Whatever is most profitable (in their opinion) is what they will do. They are not supporting a candidate for the good of the country. They are supporting a candidate because it makes profitable sense. For example, a company I used to work for donated to EVERY candidate for state office in my state. They donated equally (to the penny) to both sides of every campaign. Why would they do that? Really think about it.

      And this is not a constitutional issue. The primary problem with this situation is that Groups, businesses and the like are treated like individuals... and they are not. People have the right to assemble, but to treat that assembly as equal to an individual is wrong. The individual requires the protection of the constitution. Microsoft and Apple do not.

  2. Lobbying == Bribery by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

    A horse of a different color is still a horse, of course of course.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  3. If you want campaign finance reform by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You need to fix the problems with elections themselves. Safe districts make easily manipulated legislators not just in bed with lobbyists but married to them for decades.

    Any of the following would work:
    Increasing the number of representatives in the house by a factor of ~100
    Defining a countrywide party agnostic algorithm for automatically creating districts
    Moving to proportional representation(this one would also fix the 2 party problem).

    There are lots of other approaches, I'd support yours, if it dealt with this problem. Just support some kind of fix.

    1. Re:If you want campaign finance reform by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are lots of other approaches, I'd support yours, if it dealt with this problem. Just support some kind of fix.

      The real problem being, of course, that the people in charge of implementing such changes are the same ones who profit from not doing so.

      That being known, how do we fix it?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:If you want campaign finance reform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No term limits. No incumbents. No exceptions.

      You can hold public office as many times as you can get elected, but never twice in a row, not even to step in for an incapacitated officeholder (e.g. the VP when the POTUS is no longer capable of carrying out his duties. If the VP was the previous POTUS, he can't be POTUS again until the end of the current term. Succession goes to the next in line until someone is found to be eligible.).

      That puts a serious crimp in cronyism, and would constantly open the door to competitors.

  4. other factors by novium · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm not sure this is the best example, because congresspeople would have another incentive to support the measure: all of their home town local shops will have also been calling them up (and directing their customers to do so as well) in support of it, at least I'd guess so. I've been to enough town meeting type things where there was a lot of talk about "buy local!" and such because the local businesses were being so undercut by the big internet giants (who also weren't paying sales tax). It's the kind of thing that riles up city councils everywhere.

  5. Of course they did by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Proof: The bill got passed with bipartisan support.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  6. It's not bribery FFS by EmagGeek · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's LOBBYING. They're just expressing the free speech rights of the megacorporations they represent to influence the outcome of elections to select people who will do their bidding.

    There's a difference.

  7. 40 times by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The 40 times number is meaningless without further context. The majority of buisnesses collect sales tax. Of course those people would support removing the loop hole that prevents sales tax from being collected on internet purchases.

  8. Nice question by gmuslera · · Score: 3, Funny

    At least for someone that not followed the news the last, don't know, 20 years? You mean that you never doubted all the other major laws in last years hadn't any major bribe or similar behind?

  9. What is the primary function of politicians? by sir_eccles · · Score: 2

    It should be to serve the country, passing laws for the positive benefit of the people as a whole.

    What it ends up being is trying to get re-elected because then those nice people keep dropping off envelopes stuffed with cash.

  10. Huh? by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This statistic, as presented, proves pretty much nothing.

    Look, I'll cheerfully agree that our congresspeople are largely nicely-dressed whores who apparently will vote whichever way they're funded, but the statistics presented here are so confused as to be nearly meaningless.

    The total given by those in favor may have been 40x that given against.
    Then again, this could be (viewed objectively) simply a groundswell of opinion in favor.

    I look at my senators (both D-MN):
    Amy Klobuchar took $532,457 from those in favor, $16,298 from those opposed. ~30x as much.
    Al Franken took $858,186:$11,400 almost 90x.
    Two SOLID yes votes, as they vote mindless lockstep with their party.

    Yet Jeff Flake (R-AZ), he received $588,966 $2,800 - a staggering 200x in favor, and voted "NO".

    Mark Kirk (R-IL) $1,076,621to $28,200 or some 35x in favor, another "NO" vote.

    So it doesn't seem that the wierdly-presented statistic of how much more one guy got from one side vs the other controls which way they voted.

    I'd argue from opensecrets.org that the link between money and legislation is so obvious that it's hard to imagine that anyone could present it in a way that's NOT conclusive...like maplight managed to....

    --
    -Styopa
  11. not bribery by stenvar · · Score: 2

    Bribery is something that's done clandestinely; this obviously wasn't.

    If you don't like it, make an issue out of it next time these people run for Congress.

  12. Re:What a waste of bits by Immerman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Kind of hard for consumer groups to get up in arms either - after all you're already legally required to pay sales tax on everything you buy online, it's just that nobody actually does so. What would the consumer groups lobby on - the ability of citizens to break the law on a regular basis with impunity? In principle this legislation is simply moving responsibility for paying sales tax from the private citizens who aren't living up to their legal responsibility to the businesses which are profitting from their customer's illegal behavior.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  13. Of course it's bribery by msobkow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You Americans are the only country in the world that pretends outrageous "campaign contributions" aren't bribery.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  14. Easy solution by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    only allow individual human beings to donate to campaigns, and then only in campaigns they can vote in. Bam, money out of politics instantly.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Easy solution by westlake · · Score: 3, Interesting

      only allow individual human beings to donate to campaigns, and then only in campaigns they can vote in. Bam, money out of politics instantly.

      There are the minor constitutional problems of freedom of speech and freedom of association. "In union there is strength." A concept foreign to the geek. Which is why he is on the outside looking in. Organization and a common purpose wins elections.

      Enormous sums of money can raised and spent outside the campaign itself. The NRA has this down to a science.

    2. Re:Easy solution by greg1104 · · Score: 4, Informative

      "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.

    3. Re:Easy solution by lexsird · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.
  15. What the Citizens United decision really said ... by perpenso · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.