2016 elections - because it's never too early

[CountDeMoney]

Minsky provides a long-form definition of "special interests lobbying".  Next up: "Pork."

[Barrister]

"But the other side also did it" didn't work on the playground, and doesn't work here.

In line with our recent bliblical discussions, it's more of a mote/beam comparison.

If you want to start comparing motes and beams...

Lamar Smith has raised $1.48 million in 2016.  The source of all those donations is all quite open and public:

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?type=C&cid=N00001811&newMem=N&cycle=2016

The Clinton Foundation doesn't break down donations by year.  In fact they originally wouldn't identify their donors at all until pressured into doing so.  But it has raised approximately $2 billion dollars since 2001.

[garbon]

"But the other side also did it" didn't work on the playground, and doesn't work here.

In line with our recent bliblical discussions, it's more of a mote/beam comparison.

If you want to start comparing motes and beams...

Lamar Smith has raised $1.48 million in 2016.  The source of all those donations is all quite open and public:

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?type=C&cid=N00001811&newMem=N&cycle=2016

The Clinton Foundation doesn't break down donations by year.  In fact they originally wouldn't identify their donors at all until pressured into doing so.  But it has raised approximately $2 billion dollars since 2001.

Umm, the money went to him. Unless Clintons be skimming isn't that 2 billion off to charities?

[Razgovory]

I believe Trump is making that accusation.  He has also accused Obama of founding ISIS.  If the Clinton's are criminals, than they are probably the most effective criminals in the history of mankind.  Every accusation against them falls apart, and they have been accused of a lot.

[The Minsky Moment]

If you want to start comparing motes and beams...

Lamar Smith has raised $1.48 million in 2016.  The source of all those donations is all quite open and public:

These record the direct and leadership PAC donations.  But not necessarily the supercharged "independent expenditures" that are theoretically limitless and can be difficult to track. 

[Valmy]

Every accusation against them falls apart, and they have been accused of a lot.

I know. Funny that.

[garbon]

I believe Trump is making that accusation.  He has also accused Obama of founding ISIS.  If the Clinton's are criminals, than they are probably the most effective criminals in the history of mankind.  Every accusation against them falls apart, and they have been accused of a lot.

Reminds me of this from Tim's 538 link.

Let's take a look at Clinton's candidate record: She cleared the Democratic field in her 2000 Senate race. Then Rudy Giuliani, citing health concerns, left the race after Clinton took a lead in the polls. Clinton then beat Rick Lazio by double digits. In 2006, Clinton won re-election by more than 35 percentage points. Then in 2008, she lost to perhaps the greatest politician of our era in Obama and actually got more votes than he did*. This year, Clinton cleared the Democratic field and now she leads Trump by a considerable margin in the key swing states. To me, she's either the luckiest politician since Chris Coons or she may actually be pretty damn good.

*or thereabouts given everyone seems to claim a different vote total.

[The Minsky Moment]

Minsky provides a long-form definition of "special interests lobbying".  Next up: "Pork."

Apparently necessary in light of "shocked, shocked" reaction to garden variety influence peddling in the thread.  As if we all forgot there is a legalized system of direct bribery already in place.  I.e sure someone could try to influence HC by contributing to her family's foundation.  But much more simple and direct to give money directly to her campaign!

[Sheilbh]

Minsky provides a long-form definition of "special interests lobbying".  Next up: "Pork."

Apparently necessary in light of "shocked, shocked" reaction to garden variety influence peddling in the thread.  As if we all forgot there is a legalized system of direct bribery already in place.  I.e sure someone could try to influence HC by contributing to her family's foundation.  But much more simple and direct to give money directly to her campaign!

Foreign states and leaders can donate to the Foundation though. But they're both wrong.

As I say it's similar to Blair, who in my view, has disgraced himself since he's left office and I would be very worried about, say, one of his children or Cherie trying to run for office now.

[The Minsky Moment]

Foreign states and leaders can donate to the Foundation though.

Foreign interest can contribute to US elections as well - just form a US subsidiary.  For example, UBS runs a multi-million dollar PAC in the US through that loophole.

[Sheilbh]

Including states and foreign leaders?

As I say the example that worries me is somewhere like Kazakhstan which has donated generously to the Clinton and Blair Foundations and despite deteriorating human rights positions received pretty glowing praise from Tony and Bill for many of their policies - and in the case of Blair we know he's also offered informal advice. And as a retired 40 something people like Nazarbayev can offer you money for your causes and a 'platform' to continue to have influence.

[The Minsky Moment]

Including states and foreign leaders?

It could be done through a US sub of a state owned company.  That said no Russian and Chinese SOEs seem to be doing that.  Russia at least apparently has more effective ways of doing this. 

[alfred russel]

I think there are so many corrupting influences in politics it is nuts. There are book deals with up front payments that never sell anything, huge speaking fees from corporations (look at the list of who is getting paid the most on the private speaking circuit--almost always former politicians), future job opportunities (at companies being regulated, or even foreign governments, or international organizations). A private charity that can be used for personal perks and some element of patronage is another.

But Trump is 100% the wrong person to make the case against Clinton. By any reasonable standard he is dramatically worse than anything Clinton might be. There is every indication he is playing games to funnel money into his own pocket from his own presidential campaign. I think the guy would be worse on the corruption scale than Nixon.

[Sheilbh]

I think there are so many corrupting influences in politics it is nuts. There are book deals with up front payments that never sell anything, huge speaking fees from corporations (look at the list of who is getting paid the most on the private speaking circuit--almost always former politicians), future job opportunities (at companies being regulated, or even foreign governments, or international organizations). A private charity that can be used for personal perks and some element of patronage is another.

Yep. Just see our Trade Secretary who wrote a, by all accounts, rubbish book that sold 4k copies globally, but was, inexplicably, translated into Azeri for a high fee from a publication company owned by the President's daughter

[alfred russel]

Yep. Just see our Trade Secretary who wrote a, by all accounts, rubbish book that sold 4k copies globally, but was, inexplicably, translated into Azeri for a high fee from a publication company owned by the President's daughter

What is amazing to me is that there are retired and even some current business leaders on the private speaking circuit, but the ones getting the highest fees are political figures, and I never see anyone questioning that. If you are a private company, who do you think has more pertinent information to tell your employees to improve their productivity?