- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Lawmakers demand details of a Mar-a-Lago dinner where Trump promised to ease regulations on the oil industry while asking executives to steer $1 billion to his 2024 campaign.
You must log in or register to comment.
If democrats wanna go after trump for soliciting bribes, maybe they should work on outlawing those bribes and stop accepting them themselves.
Lobbying donations are legal in order to keep the money exchange transparent, specifically so officials can be held accountable for quid pro quo exchange. What Trump reportedly said was exactly what’s not legal, promising eased regulations or preferential treatment in exchange for donations.
Considering the very common practice of lobbyists drafting up specific legislation for politicians to use, i dont think this is the case. Or at the very least has zero enforcement.
It’s the latter.
My feed…
The AT&T article clearly states that it’s quid pro quo, or this for that. That’s not legal.
My point is that the lobbying doesn’t seem to stop the bribing.
It’s not meant to stop it. It’s meant to make money exchange transparent so the law can hold them accountable more easily if they’re used in exchange of preferential treatment.
I’m not a fan of monetary exchange in lobbying either, but at least now we can see the exchange instead of it being under the table like it was before lobbying law.
Fortunately for them, Drumpf is dumb enough to break the few laws we do have so they don’t need to reign anything in to get him.
Oh yeah theyll get him this time
Just like every other time… 🤡
Lol, a little difference between lobbying, and offering services for specific dollar amounts, that just happens to be SURPRISE!!! ILLEGAL. Shocker right? I know, republikkklowns just look the other way, rules for thee not for meeeeeeee.
Lol, a little difference between lobbying, and offering services for specific dollar amounts,
nope
Give me money to potentially sway my vote in a way that helps you. Ok.
I tell you give me a million and i’ll make that vote happen. Illegal and not ok.
I’m sure at this point you’re just a troll, but there is a difference there.
Sway your vote? Man lobbyists hand you the whole prewritten legislation to sponsor for their money. Legal because its going to your election campaign instead of directly to you.
I can’t believe you wrote that whole sentence before writing a dictionary, such hypocrisy.
Im not just calling out hypocrisy, i mean it literally, they cant do anything about this because laws are very lenient for campaign donations. So if they actually want to stop this, they do actually need to make legislative changes.
Why? Just abolish Citizens United and make lobbying equate to the bribery it is. Nothing will truly be fixed until that happens.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
You can’t take away the last bit.
Giving politicians money and then asking them to pass a bill favorable to you is not “petitioning the government,” it’s bribery. If corps and billionaires want to try to convince the politicians that they should pass the bills they want, they can still do that. There just shouldn’t be money changing hands.
But a corporation is not entitled to that. Neither is money. People are.
Allowing money to count as a petition is limiting the freedom of those without money then.
Fuck Trump and everything but isn’t this going on like every day with nearly every elected official?
Not out loud, so they have to at leat pretend to be outraged.
Yes, this needs to be investigated. This was clearly a request for a quid pro quo arrangement. Pay me this and I’ll do that for you. Very illegal. In case there’s any doubt about that…
In 1976, announcing the Supreme Court’s landmark Buckley v. Valeo decision, Chief Justice Warren Burger set this standard for corruption: “the reality & appearance of improper influence stemming from the dependence of candidates on large campaign contributions.”
The current chief justice, John Roberts, had led an effort to tighten that broad language. Roberts, delivering the McCutcheon v. FEC ruling last year, defined corruption as “a contribution to a particular candidate in exchange for his agreeing to do a particular act within his official duties.”
He was describing a quid pro quo – the donor’s money in explicit exchange for the politician’s official favor. It’s a felony.
Just to be clear, John Roberts, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the USA defined corruption as “a contribution to a particular candidate in exchange for his agreeing to do a particular act within his official duties.”
Very illegal, very uncool.
