Florida legalizes bribery.

So you're going to start telling private entities how they can or cannot spend their money, business or otherwise. It seems slightly authoritarian when you or the government starts to tell private businesses or persons how they can use their money, which they earn and legally acquire. If I want to help a local politician, who I support get elected, I will donate some of my personal wealth to help with his campaign. Or I use the profit from the butcher shop I own to donate to the same politician. Now why can't I do that? Am I bribing that politician? Is my private business one of those evil corporations? This just seems bloody stupid.

edited 28th Mar '11 11:35:16 PM by izumoshep

It's totally reasonable to restrict how people/businesses can spend their money, especially in the case of politics. Besides, there's plenty of things you can't legally buy with your hard-earned legal tender.

While, ideally, unlimited donations to candidates would not lead to corporations/the rich/etc getting preferential treatment, I'm almost certain this won't be the case. More importantly, being able to accept unlimited donations does not help the little guy. Say I could donate $5,000 and still live comfortably. That pales in comparison to the $5,000,000 Trope Co donated just this morning. Who's the politician more likely to help out? If donations are capped at like $10,000 sure, Trope Co can still donate more than me, but it's not nearly so drastic a gap.

However, you can easily make the argument that the money you've "donated" to the politician will give you undue influence over their decisions. Even if you have no intention of exerting ANY influence over the politician you could make the further argument that politicians espousing ideals in favour of rich individuals and large companies will receive FAR more money than other politicians and hence I suspect be more likely to be elected, implying that these rich individuals and corporations are directing and dominating the democratic process.

As long as legislative bodies are able to make wide and sweeping changes capable of affecting businesses to a great degree, businesses are always going to attempt to influence the decisions being made. Pass all the laws you want, they'll find ways to get around them; they always have.

Saying "oh their going to do it anyway" is no reason to not try. Thats like saying "were all going to die anyway so why bother living", its pure bunkum.

izumoshep:

When it comes to their own integrity and when the action isn't harming law and order or the personal lives of anyone, including those corporations, yes, they can be as authoritarian as they want out of necessity in this matter.

I agree with everyone else that has spoken.

Looks like I won't be going to Florida anytime soon.

So anyone know what these "leadership funds" are actually used for? I could actually see this being somewhat legit, depending on what that money goes to. People donating to a political campaign are doing just that — donating to a campaign, giving money in support of a specific thing they'd like see happen (their candidate of choice being elected). Ditto things like donations to political parties — it goes to cover the administrative costs of running the party, and the rest is given to party members' campaigns.

The difference between a donation and a bribe isn't the amount of money given, it's what the money is used for. A donation is given for a specific cause; a bribe is given to a person. If these "leadership funds" are actually earmarked for something specific, then it's not nearly as dire as it sounds. (Which isn't to say I'm fond of unlimited donations, but still.) If people are paying for a senator's reelection campaign, that's completely different than if they're paying for a senator's new pool.

If a person or corporation "donates" money to a candidate or party, and that person or corporation gets some benefit from the government at a later date, then it's bribery. Bribery is wrong. Calling it something else, or insisting it doesn't happen, or making it technically legal, doesn't make it right. This isn't a right/left issue, it's a have/have-not issue. The people you elected to represent you aren't representing you, they work for their donors.

A business has every reason to bribe government officials. The ROI (return on investment) for a campaign contribution can be 100 or even 1000.

So all forms of political contribution are wrong? I guess that's one stance to take...

If all forms of political contribution are wrong, then only multi-millionaires can run for office. The more you limit donations, the richer an individual has to be if they want to run for office. (Mind you, I'm not saying that there should be no limits, but I don't agree with eliminating donations entirely.)

Limit how much someone can spend on a campaign in the first place, or take national measures to ensure all candidates are heard. That is, the state finances measures for candidates getting their voice out.

I believe one of the major reasons American political campaigns cost so much is the expense of TV advertising. Wouldn't it be possible to make the networks give the politicians a certain amount of free time and just ban them from running any others? Not exactly libertarian, I admit, but it would have the additional advantage that there are fewer of the crappy things inflicted on the viewers.

You're right. They aren't bribing them, they're buying them, it's completely and entirely legal.

edited 29th Mar '11 11:26:22 AM by Ardiente

I wonder... with the rise of Youtube and social networking as a legitimate campaign platform, we might see the glass ceiling of campaign expenses start to crack, if not break outright. Anyone can put up a campaign channel, a facebook page, and a twitter page and let their campaign spread through word of mouth for effectively zero cost. Even 10 years ago the idea would have been unthinkable, now it almost seems inevitable.

Obama used those wisely.

Exactly: it's proven to not just raise recognition, but win elections. The only limitation might be production costs, but people are doing amazing things with amateur video these days.

edited 29th Mar '11 11:38:48 AM by Ratix

If Doug Walker were to run for president...

You'd also have to ban their buddies from running commercials for them.

Well you know...there's always casting their vote...as long as it isn't rigged or some shady shit happening...

The whole thing is stupid. There's very little actual outright bribery at that level. Politicians rarely do things that are that out of character. Does bribery happen at the local level? Yes. (An example that I have seen is using zoning laws to favor one business over another) But the higher up you go, the less "routine" decisions get made. A state or especially a federal politician simply doesn't make the decisions that would result in making bribery actually bribery.

So what does happen?

People donate time, energy, and money towards causes and politicians that they support. Nothing more, nothing less. Is this a good thing? I think it's a neutral thing. I don't think it changes all that much. Quite frankly, the media's fetish of he-said/she-said politics and a neutral stance is much more dangerous than any amount of campaign funding. Now, I'd personally would like a public funding position, for a variety of reasons, the biggest would be to allow more people from more backgrounds to run for public office. But it has nothing to do with bribery or corruption.

The problem with corporations and politics is that too many people still believe in trickle-down economics. Any amount of campaign contributions isn't going to change that.

?

You give rich people lots of money and then the money will trickle down into other areas of the economy. Works about as well as trying to wring blood from a stone.

...

Have these people heard of any advances in economics since Kaynes?

If only this were an accurate picture of corporate economics.◊

On topic: not much to say other than WTF. Then again, it is the #6 most corrupt state in the US.

edited 29th Mar '11 1:20:17 PM by Pykrete