374

Salon.com

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Zippit@lemmy.world 155 points 1 year ago

My mind is still baffled that you can let outside sources give government members money to do their bidding and call it 'lobbying.'

I mean if this happened where I live, we'd call it bribery.

AOC is on fire lately. I'm a big fan of her.

[-] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 43 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It absolutely IS legalised bribery. That's why the US isn't ranked as the most corrupt of all western countries in every study; doesn't count if it's legal and expected.

[-] Zippit@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

How can this be legal? Sorry I'm a real dimwit today. Maybe Americans should focus on getting rid of lobbyists with money first. That'll get rid of a lot of problems.

[-] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 24 points 1 year ago

You're not being a dimwit, it's the immense corruption implicitly accepted that's utterly bizarre. I'd be baffled too if I wasn't used to it. Still am sometimes, tbh.

And yeah, getting private (and foreign government) money out of public politics is the absolute most effective thing that the US could do to start fixing the many systemic problems.

[-] SheDiceToday@eslemmy.es 9 points 1 year ago

Because lobbying does have its place. When your local charity that advocates for better mental health sends someone to speak to a senator about how a program could be improved, or where it is causing issues, that's lobbying.

The corruption comes when the senator expects a three course meal experience as the cost of having that talk with they lobbyist, or the lobbyist has connections to people who will totally not base their donations on what the senator agrees to during the meeting. Sure, we could make that sort of lobbying illegal, but who is going to investigate 400+ individuals having several meetings a day with people wanting to advocate for various agendas? The IRS is already getting the shaft, and they're the ones who freaking bring in the money! Do you think congress will ever agree to pay money to set up something to investigate themselves?

[-] Zippit@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

That's why lobbying should be okay, but excepting money and/or goods or even a cookie is corrupt. There should be an ethics code or something and every prosecutor in the country should go after every single one of them.

I used to work for the government here in Europe. It was really emphasized that accepting gifts from the public is never acceptable.

Then I worked for a nonprofit that had 1 person who had ties to the government in our board and even there, when a client brought me wine because I helped house them (my job), I had to decline and explain why.

It was harder, because they were refugees and didn't understand. I said the gesture was appreciated and I gladly helped them, but it could be seen as corruption and would jeopardize the funding of my organisation.

Afterwards I was laughingly bitching at my boss and colleagues about how I had to say no to good wine and it was blasphemy. So I got a few bottles of wine every year for my birthday from then on.

[-] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 1 points 1 year ago

When your local charity that advocates for better mental health sends someone to speak

That's worlds apart from profit-based corporations and rich people sending money, hosting high dollar fundraisers and bundling hundreds if not thousands of maximum "individual" donations. Not even the same UNIVERSE as unlimited dark money.

three course meal experience as the cost of having that talk with the lobbyist(..)Sure, we could make that sort of lobbying illegal

That it isn't already is extremely embarrassing to anyone who claims that corruption isn't rampant in American politics. It already IS illegal for doctors to do that and, while there's a lot of people exploiting loopholes, it's nothing compared to the number of politicians doing it like it's the most natural thing in the world.

The IRS is already getting the shaft

Mainly BECAUSE of the rich and powerful being the de facto deciders of most laws

Do you think congress will ever agree to pay money to set up something to investigate themselves?

They will if they're forced to. I'm thinking a general strike and just 1/1000 of the people dissatisfied with the corruption protesting in front of their offices every day for a few weeks or months ought to do it. Could even do it in shifts so no one person has to go more than a couple times a month and still have plenty enough to make the status quo that's needlessly killing hundreds of thousands of people people unbearable to the corrupt demagogues maintaining it too.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I’m thinking a general strike and just 1/1000 of the people

If you want a general strike to happen en masse, you need to create an organization to coordinate it. If Occupy Wall Street showed anything, it's that you need leadership to provide organization and coordination.

One of the things this organization will need to be able to do is put food on the table for someone who's striking but living paycheck to paycheck. It'll need to be able to take care of people that are fired.

It would effectively need to brand itself as a citizen's union, and ask for dues and donations so it can build a war chest for the strike itself.

Shits tough to do. For that much effort, people would rather just go into politics and try to make a difference there. And that is actually something that we need more people to do.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So the reason it isn't considered bribery is because they're not paying anyone to change their positions so much as finding people who already agree with their positions and dumping money on them to win elections.

Less direct quid pro quo bribery and more patron client sponsorship.

That's why the whole money is speech thing happened, because the way the system operates basically amounts to using funds as a form of public endorsement, which is a protected form of free speech, and it's pretty hard to say why one group should be able to do that while another shouldn't without one of those groups already being in jail.

The problem is that the system doesn't publicly finance elections, and as a result, can't justify why some should be able to donate while others shouldn't.

[-] Zippit@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I get it, but wouldn't it be easier to just make lobbying free and let everyone have a say instead of taking the money and risking the nation's security by foreign influence?

I mean, it's just opening up your country for catastrophe at this point.

[-] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

The only way to do that really at the moment would be to give Congress members a discretionary fund to use for getting constituents out to speak with them on the issues, the problem with that is that it gives the Congress critters the ability to influence who's able to talk to them by just never scheduling people who want to talk about shit they're not interested in.

It would also require Congress critters to never attend any sort of educational conference which runs afowl of freedom of association.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 76 points 1 year ago

AOC speaking truth to power again ✊️

AIPAC is a bigoted propaganda apparatus for an apartheid state and an endorsement from them should be considered as toxic as an endorsement from the KKK or Rick Snyder who deliberately poisoned the drinking water of Flint, Michigan and then lied about it.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] acpx@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

Reads like an ai generated article. How long can a summarization of a tweet be? 2000 words?

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago

Here’s the original article if you didn’t like that one.

[-] acpx@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

That was written by a human. Reading largely the same paragraph multiple times is infuriating.

Appreciate the link

[-] foggy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

But what happened next was really insane. However, they continued down the road where they could see a road.

[-] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Glad to see you back in action!

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

I had a colonoscopy, it was… not fun.

[-] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Well at least you are taking care of your health. That is something to be proud of to be sure. I'm not looking forward to those days, but I am thankful to live in a time and place where I have access to medical science.

[-] TheJims@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It’s like CPAC but with less antisemitism

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Dang that was good. You should rest now.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2023
374 points (95.0% liked)

politics

19097 readers
2939 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS