Now you can Legally Bribe Them

@jj-adams said
Keeping a man she knew was innocent on death row when she was the district attorney in San Francisco until she was forced to provide the exonerating evidence she was hiding for starters.
You want more?
What kind of monster would do a thing like that?

D.A. Kamala Harris followed the evidence presented
by THE SF POLICE DEPT.
There was NO PROSECUTION MISCONDUCT
https://factcheck.thedispatch.com/p/did-kamala-harris-frame-and-prosecute
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/oct/09/viral-image/harris-didnt-frame-and-prosecute-man-murder/
https://www.allsides.com/news/2020-08-19-0753/did-kamala-harris-frame-and-prosecute-man-murder
Trulove even supported her as VP Candidate
YouTube

Clean up on aisle three 😛

@suzianne said
From Wikipedia:
Although the conflict between public and private interests is common to all forms of corruption, the term "graft" is specific to the intentional misdirection of official funds. Although not the original usage of the term, graft in the modern context is commonly used as a blanket term for political embezzlement, influence peddling, or other forms of corruptio ...[text shortened]... ’ sense of the word graft.”


For a blatant example of both, see 'The Trump Crime Family'.-- Suzi

Thumbs up.

@jimm619 said
Oh, yeah.......right... In real life, we know how this stuff plays out.
Also from the link.
Trevor Potter, president of
The Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan group that supports campaign finance laws, expressed disappointment at the ruling.
"Permitting candidates to solicit unlimited post-election contributions to repay their personal campaign loans and put the donor m ...[text shortened]... ial interests to purchase official favors and rig the political system in their favor," Potter said.

Unions (such as the teacher's union) endorse candidates. If the candidate wins then they give the Union a favorable contract. This too is a legal bribe and the benefits blow away any cap. Does that bother you too or are you really complaining about a potential result and that a process?

@earl-of-trumps said
@Who-is-watching-the-watchers

Amen

No matter who steals what from whom,
this ruling will make it easier to do so.
Are y'all applauding this ruling as a good decision?

@jimm619 said
No matter who steals what from whom,
this ruling will make it easier to do so.
Are y'all applauding this ruling as a good decision?

No one caps the number of times the New York Times writes essentially the same the left leaning editorial. No one caps the number of times people stand outside and express their feelings on different issues. If you don't own a newspaper, and you have a job and can't picket all day, I don't have a problem if you give your money to support a cause.
The truth is you are far more bothered by outsized influence by those who vote differently than you than outsized support of those you agree with.

@quackquack said
No one caps the number of times the New York Times writes essentially the same the left leaning editorial. No one caps the number of times people stand outside and express their feelings on different issues. If you don't own a newspaper, and you have a job and can't picket all day, I don't have a problem if you give your money to support a cause.
The truth is you are ...[text shortened]... ized influence by those who vote differently than you than outsized support of those you agree with.

Wrong....
I am concerned by the powerful special interests
setting the agenda for our republic...This decision just makes
it easier...an invitation for corruption....for everyone..
The left leaning NYT nor the right leaning WSJ
have no dogs in the fight to do with
voting on bills for compensation....er..... 'Campaign contributions.'
..You think it's a good ruling?

@jimm619 said
Wrong....
I am concerned by the powerful special interests
setting the agenda for our republic...This decision just makes
it easier...an invitation for corruption....for everyone..
The left leaning NYT nor the right leaning WSJ
have no dogs in the fight to do with
voting on bills for compensation....er..... 'Campaign contributions.'
..You think it's a good ruling?

You seem to be more bothered by large donors than groups that represent smaller donors. Either way the group is influencing government.
Do you want a smaller government? it would make a lot more difficult for groups to influence it.

@quackquack said
You seem to be more bothered by large donors than groups that represent smaller donors. Either way the group is influencing government.
Do you want a smaller government? it would make a lot more difficult for groups to influence it.

I have stated before, they should take ALL MONEY out of elections.
It's relative, campaign contributions to a local judge or city councilman..........Think 'The elected 'Dogcatcher' might give
your dog favorable treatment had you given a large 'contribution?'.............National Politics are the same thing,
just on a larger scale....What was the going rate to play a round of golf with # 45?, #44?............There are plenty of loopholes, they should be making it harder to buy influence, not easier.
...........Fair 'nuf?

@quackquack said
You seem to be more bothered by large donors than groups that represent smaller donors.

Correct. Since, in this neo-con economy, billions-paying large donors do have (and yes, the numbers do bear this out, so don't bother to quibble) a lot more influence on your corrupt, mainly Republican politicians than do groups representing mere millions of tens-of-dollars worth actual human beings.

Not that a libertarian would be able to do that grade-school sum, but bef, c'est la vie.

@jimm619 said
I have stated before, they should take ALL MONEY out of elections.
It's relative, campaign contributions to a local judge or city councilman..........Think 'The elected 'Dogcatcher' might give
your dog favorable treatment had you given a large 'contribution?'.............National Politics are the same thing,
just on a larger scale....What was the going rate to play a round ...[text shortened]... y of loopholes, they should be making it harder to buy influence, not easier.
...........Fair 'nuf?

Giving money is just one way of getting outsized influence. If you want to be consistent, tell me how you will limit the amount of time people donate to campaigns, how much space newspapers and magazines will give to support their candidate, how many shows minutes of TV time will be given to support a candidate. As long as we don't limit all these forms of undue influence, there is no reason to pick on just one form of influence.

@shallow-blue said
Correct. Since, in this neo-con economy, billions-paying large donors do have (and yes, the numbers do bear this out, so don't bother to quibble) a lot more influence on your corrupt, mainly Republican politicians than do groups representing mere millions of tens-of-dollars worth actual human beings.

Not that a libertarian would be able to do that grade-school sum, but bef, c'est la vie.

The textbook case of legal corruption is unions for a large school endorsing a candidate with funds taken out of each and every member and then if/ when the candidate wins they get an oversized raise when their contract expires.

@quackquack said
Giving money is just one way of getting outsized influence. If you want to be consistent, tell me how you will limit the amount of time people donate to campaigns, how much space newspapers and magazines will give to support their candidate, how many shows minutes of TV time will be given to support a candidate. As long as we don't limit all these forms of undue influence, there is no reason to pick on just one form of influence.

The campaigns should be
publicly financed.....
//// Do you think this is a good decision?

@quackquack said
The textbook case of legal corruption is unions for a large school endorsing a candidate with funds taken out of each and every member and then if/ when the candidate wins they get an oversized raise when their contract expires.

Really...............When did this happen?..
I more often worry about a company like say,
HALLIBURTON, getting us into a war where they
reaped BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in BLOOD MONEY
PROFITEERING.

@jimm619 said
Really...............When did this happen?..
I more often worry about a company like say,
HALLIBURTON, getting us into a war where they
reaped BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in BLOOD MONEY
PROFITEERING.

You basically just admitted you don't care about the issue, you only care about your political agenda.

@quackquack said
You basically just admitted you don't care about the issue, you only care about your political agenda.

WRONG...........
I am on the subject....Political influence wielded by special interests.
Why will you not answer my question?
Do you think this is a good decision?