Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

Blind trusts exist for a reason.  Although sometimes they aren't as blind as they should be the problem is more with politicians not using blind trusts at all.  If a politician has money in a broad investment they dont know the details of there is very little conflict of interest between them having money and them having public power.

[nenjin]

I don't think I agree. Giving Blind Trust to the people enriching you doesn't absolve you of what they do in your name.

[wierd]

Theoretically, the panamanian bank and trust company that these documents leaked from operated in such a capacity.

The real outrage here is that people are stunned to realize that it takes money to be a politician, and that there are costs to political moves, both financial and otherwise, and doubly stunned that thier leaders engage in such actions.

The line between graft and simple costs of international politics is a murky, ill defined one at best.

Take for instance, what all needs to happen to secure a trade relationship with China, and what is standard operating process to do business in china.

I am pretty sure that if the US govt, or any other western govt created a "grease up Chinese regulators" fund, it would be very noisome in the press.  Nevermind that this is exactly what has to happen to do basically anything in China.

That's where all this talk of graft and corruption is coming from. Not everyone plays by the same rules, and where those rules dont quite line up, exceptions need to be made, and sometimes theres a good and compelling reason not to discuss those exceptions publicly.

Basically, One planet, Different countries, Different philosophies, Different governments. To make it work, compromises need to happen. Greasing up regulators in another country, AS THEY EXPECT TO BE, is one such thing. It sucks, but it's the truth.

It strikes me as hollow that these people are mad about their prime minister's financial holdings, and less about the reasons why he has to hold them.

To me, one flows natrually from the other. Fix the underlying issue, and the problem fixes itself.



(By this, I mean drawing world attention to campaign finance, to international trade agreement politics, and things of this matter, so that politicians dont have to have huge warchests of private wealth and private interests to successfully be valuable government agents that are able to accomplish the tasks mandated of them.)

[PTTG??]

Ok yeah, we'll just eliminate corruption around the planet first, then get rid of the politicians who continue to support them.

[wierd]

while my sarcas-o-meter just buried the needle there, it is sadly the truth. As long as the graft system is the status quo, none of the players have incentive to stop, and trying to be a morally operated government engaging in the world market will just hasten your slide into market irrelevency.

That's a very powerful negative incentive against removal of graft politics.

[Reelya]

This kind of thing is the rule rather than the exception.  Proper recusal for holding interests in market players by politicians would result in the politicians recusing themselves so regularly that they could not function properly. The money needed to be a career politician requires that they have such holdings to be able to run for office.

Though, arguably, the main reason you need such assets to run for office is because politics is a competitive game. An analogy would be drugs in sport. Imagine if doping was 100% legal. Then every top athlete would do it, and you could similarly argue that anti-doping rules are unworkable because the performance needed to be a career athlete requires that they take such drugs to be able to compete in tournaments. In fact, just like you don't run out of athletes by disallowing all the drug users, there's no real problem with restricting the allowed financial interests of all politicians, as long as it's done as a level playing field. It's not like we lack a supply of humans who would make perfectly good politicians and don't have high-level stakes in industry.

Sure, politics would look a lot different, but there's no actual evidence that it would function any worse than now. In fact, it would be a lot more sensible if campaign costs were limited and paid for from taxation. In fact, screw the whole process of primaries, nominations, and parties. If you implemented Instant Run-Off Voting, then there's no real reason you need to be limited to two candidates in the general election for President. With IRV there's no "spoiler effect" by, for instance, being allowed the choice of Clinton, Sander or Trump in the general election. You just order them 1-2-3 in the order of your preference. If your #1 is knocked out, your full vote goes to your #2 choice. Basically, just have state-level all-party primaries using First Past The Post voting, and proportional delegates, and take say the top 6 candidates who won the most national delegates, and those are the guys on the November ballot that you number 1-6 in order of preference. Presto, a WAY more simple and fair way to choose candidates, which wouldn't actually require many changes or much voter education. Counting up to 6 shouldn't be difficult, even for Americans.

[SalmonGod]

I don't really expect this to amount to much of anything.  But PTW anyway.

[mainiac]

I don't think I agree. Giving Blind Trust to the people enriching you doesn't absolve you of what they do in your name.

That's a different issue.  If they are horrible human beings because of investments they make, that will be true whether they are politicians or not.  Blind trusts are just about avoiding conflicts of interest.

[Starver]

A man, a plan - I money keep on no tax, a ton "No peek!", ye nominal Panama...

[mainiac]

Burma shave?

[Strife26]

This kind of thing is the rule rather than the exception.  Proper recusal for holding interests in market players by politicians would result in the politicians recusing themselves so regularly that they could not function properly. The money needed to be a career politician requires that they have such holdings to be able to run for office.

Though, arguably, the main reason you need such assets to run for office is because politics is a competitive game. An analogy would be drugs in sport. Imagine if doping was 100% legal. Then every top athlete would do it, and you could similarly argue that anti-doping rules are unworkable because the performance needed to be a career athlete requires that they take such drugs to be able to compete in tournaments. In fact, just like you don't run out of athletes by disallowing all the drug users, there's no real problem with restricting the allowed financial interests of all politicians, as long as it's done as a level playing field. It's not like we lack a supply of humans who would make perfectly good politicians and don't have high-level stakes in industry.

Sure, politics would look a lot different, but there's no actual evidence that it would function any worse than now. In fact, it would be a lot more sensible if campaign costs were limited and paid for from taxation. In fact, screw the whole process of primaries, nominations, and parties. If you implemented Instant Run-Off Voting, then there's no real reason you need to be limited to two candidates in the general election for President. With IRV there's no "spoiler effect" by, for instance, being allowed the choice of Clinton, Sander or Trump in the general election. You just order them 1-2-3 in the order of your preference. If your #1 is knocked out, your full vote goes to your #2 choice. Basically, just have state-level all-party primaries using First Past The Post voting, and proportional delegates, and take say the top 6 candidates who won the most national delegates, and those are the guys on the November ballot that you number 1-6 in order of preference. Presto, a WAY more simple and fair way to choose candidates, which wouldn't actually require many changes or much voter education. Counting up to 6 shouldn't be difficult, even for Americans.

Limits on political spending is massively restricting speech and political speech at that. The alternate primary and election system has some value, but that'd require an amendment to the Constitution, which is (for good reasons) very difficult to do.

[SalmonGod]

Not limiting political spending is massively restricting political speech.  It allows the rich to bury any voice that isn't their own.

[mainiac]

Limits on political spending is massively restricting speech and political speech at that. The alternate primary and election system has some value, but that'd require an amendment to the Constitution, which is (for good reasons) very difficult to do.

I dont think it would require a constitutional amendment.  Citizens united was a 5-4 decision and the majority opinion stated that campaigns certainly wouldn't work in tandem with political action committees.  I'm no lawyer but it seems to me that all a future supreme court justice would need to do was say the constitutional merits are the same but it turns out there is evidence of coordination so advertising restrictions are allowed.

Keep in mind there are tons of restrictions in advertising which the supreme court has held on many occasions.  The campaign money explosion happened because a particular kind of spending was considered free speech, not because congress isn't allowed to restrict political advertising.

[Reelya]

Limits on political spending is massively restricting speech and political speech at that. The alternate primary and election system has some value, but that'd require an amendment to the Constitution, which is (for good reasons) very difficult to do.

Ahh, the old "money = speech" thing. They tend to apply that pretty selectively don't they however? Anyway, Citizen's United is pretty flaky at best, a 4-5 vote.

But it could also be argued how free is speech when someone is free to bribe the media large sums of money to skew what's being covered? Is that really "speech"?

[PTTG??]

Citizens United needs to be overturned with fire and blood if necessary.