2016 elections - because it's never too early

[OttoVonBismarck]

Yeah, I have to agree with Raz, genuine outright corruption--which I define as an illegal quid-pro-quo, or similar, is quite rare.

I can't even begin to parse this

The idea that a corporation employing 20% of the district is just a large citizen group is what sounds strange to me.

[OttoVonBismarck]

And maybe I just see it more because of my career history, but I think the most corrupt area of our system has nothing to do with elections, or even elected officials. It's more about major government vendors (like defense contractors) arranging for career civil servants to retire and come work for them making 3x as much money right after approving a major procurement for said vendor.

I think corporations are primarily motivated by desire to increase profits, and I think congress critters are actually less able to deliver direct ROI versus other less visible parts of government.

I think the more "broad" sort of lobbying/campaign/industry PAC spending you see is viewed by the corps as similar to the dollars they spend on marketing/advertising/PR, it's designed to shape dialogue long term to their benefit, but there's not any serious expectation of any sort of immediate or specific return.

[DGuller]

I can't even begin to parse this

Sorry to hear that, let me know if the situation changes.

[jimmy olsen]

Why would conmpanies give money to politicians if they were going to vote in their favor anyway? You think companies just throw money away for no expected return on that investment?

That is just naive.

Of course they expect something back. They expect that politician to represent their interests. This has always happened, and always will happen, but the degree that it influences political choices varies based on the relative necessity of that money, which now has become absolutely essential. You *might* lose an election if you piss off the electorate - you won't even BE in the election if you piss off the donor class.

I am reminded of that quote by Steel Magnate Henry Clay Frick with regards to his contributions to Teddy Roosevelt's campaign:  "We bought the son of a bitch and then he didn't stay bought."

Eventually we will have to change the system but nothing short of a Constitutional amendment will do that at this point. I haven't really heard anybody moving for that.

Hillary has repeatedly said she wants an amendment overturning citizen's united.

[Valmy]

Hillary has repeatedly said she wants an amendment overturning citizen's united.

I am pretty sure that is not true. I have been reliably informed that she is the most corrupt politician who has ever drawn breathe by citizen k.

[Eddie Teach]

I don't think those points are mutually exclusive.

[Valmy]

I don't think those points are mutually exclusive.

I suppose she could be a self-loathing corrupt politician. Like Sulla passing laws to make sure he could never exist again.

[DGuller]

I don't think those points are mutually exclusive.

I suppose she could be a self-loathing corrupt politician. Like Sulla passing laws to make sure he could never exist again.

There doesn't have to be any self-loathing involved at all in it.  For example, in Formula 1, drivers often demand that yellow flags be strictly enforced by the stewards.  These are the same drivers that speed through yellow-flagged sections and risk crashing into the wreckage or rescue crew. 

Are they self-loathing or shameless hypocrites?  No, they just want to create a system where acting responsibly is not a competitive disadvantage, but as long as acting responsibly is punished competitively, they will not give anything away to the opposition that acts irresponsibly.

[Phillip V]

Clinton has now received 50% support in a 4-way national poll.  Impressive.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

[garbon]

No, they just want to create a system where acting responsibly is not a competitive disadvantage, but as long as acting responsibly is punished competitively, they will not give anything away to the opposition that acts irresponsibly.

Which I thinks makes sense as a real world stance.

[jimmy olsen]

Trump on the stump

[celedhring]

Wondermark is brilliant 

[derspiess]

In terms of corruption of the system I would worry far more about Bill and the Clinton Foundation than Hill and her speaking fees etc.

This conspiracy theory confuses me as well. Exactly why would the Clinton's engage in political corruption to fund a non-profit foundation, whose assets they can't touch for personal purposes?

Don't they and their friends/family draw salaries from it?

[derspiess]

I received some Trump campaign mail asking for a donation.  Included was a Trump Card with my name on it! 

[OttoVonBismarck]

No. President Clinton and Chelsea Clinton, who serve on the Board of Directors, do not take a salary from the Clinton Foundation and receive no funding from it. Secretary Clinton did not take a salary when she served on the Board of Directors.

From their web page.