I mean, it becomes a vicious cycle... I give you money and you give me a raise, which allows me to give you more money and you to give me a bigger raise, etc, until we each retire with huge benefits for the rest of our lives.
(no message)
And if we bar political contributions all our politicians will be self funding... ie., rich folk who will write our tax laws. Never mind... that’s practically the case already
How is it any more of a conflict of interest than a corporation donating to a campaign of a politician who will regulate its industry?
BTW, they are prohibited from being overtly political during the performance of official duties by the Hatch Act.
If that were private sector (a company making the donation), it would be illegal (for the company). Not if you are a government official, though. After all, a politician wouldn't be overtly political.
The Clinton Foundation (1) was not corrupt - see its ratings by charity watchdogs, (2) did a lot of good in the developing world, (3) had zero influence on our foreign policy, and (4) is old news.
But carry on.
Norway stopped giving $20 million/year in 2016. Australia stopped giving nearly $9 million/year in November of 2016. The Clinton Global Initiative closed their offices in January of 2017.
Any of those dates coincide with anything?
If they were purely a foundation doing good work in the developing nations, why did those, and other, countries stop contributing? Those nations decided to stop doing good things? At those precise times? Norway is the greatest most caring country in the world...why would they do such a thing?
Sure...nothing to see here.
The Clinton Foundation was not the primary wealth generator for them. Never said that it was. It was in part a barometer with nations paying to give them further clout in the world, it was a place to bury certain expenses (trips, etc.) when needed and it was a bullpen to bestow positions on people or keep them on the payroll until they could be shifted into the positions where the Clintons wanted them. or where they could return favors.
(no message)
Maybe we need independent regulators to determine the appropriate pay and benefits for our government employees.
But if corporations and their people give money to the members of Congress who make the laws that give birth to these rules and regulations that regulate their industries, that's not a "conflict of interest?" This is what is called "sophistry."
It is not a coincidence that states where public unions have the most power are the ones with the worst budget issues. It is almost hilarious that poor states such as Idaho and Mississippi can balance their budgets, while very wealthy states like New Jersey and Connecticut are slowly drowning.
(no message)
(no message)
The beauty of this is that the elected official will be out of office long before the giant pensions they grant every become an issue for the government...so why not give them a sweetheart deal?
(no message)
(no message)
Perfectly defensible.
What isn't intellectually honest is to argue for all these limitations regarding conflicts of interest for federal workers but not for corporations and their people when they give to the people who create the laws that shape the regulations of the industries from which they profit. It's contradictory...hypocritical.
I can't wait for a liberal to argue that we need public unions because we can't rely on the government to protect workers.
And the libs have a sound argument, in that when a Scott Walker or Chris Christie is elected, they really can't count on the state to look after its own.
I suspect they inherited really bad pension arrangements that needed to be handled.
So the next best solution is to forbid bailing out bankrupt schools, municipalities, and States. Let those taxpayers and pensioners wallow in their own demise.
(no message)
Say, maybe we should mandate that the minority party be entitled to a certain number of seats in state legislatures and then we will have less powerful public sector unions? Whaddya think?
(no message)
(no message)
Walker lost that election in places like La Crosse and Eau Claire and by underperforming in the Milwaukee suburbs and Fox Valley.
(no message)
With a Republican-controlled legislature. You don't know what you're talking about on this count.