In a perverse sort of way I’m glad that we’re discussing, if people shouting at each other on television can be called “discussing”, political corruption. It’s a conversation that’s long overdue. We have a number of decisions to make.
I think that most of would agree that a president’s asking a foreign head of state to dig up dirt on a political opponent would be unseemly. Is it illegal? What statute would have been broken? Is it unethical?
Would it be less illegal, unethical, or unseemly if the individual to be investigated were not a political opponent? Why?
“Logrolling” (“you roll my log, I’ll roll yours”) has been part of the American political vernacular since the 1820s, nearly as long as there has been a United States. Is there a legal or ethical difference or a difference in decorum between legislative logrolling and executive? Between domestic executive logrolling and international? If politics doesn’t “stop at the water’s edge” for legislators, should it do so for the Chief Executive?
And what about influence peddling, “pay for play”, whether explicit or implicit? Is there something wrong with Hillary Clinton being Secretary of State and the Clinton Family Foundation hitting up foreign governments for donations? Bill Clinton being paid to make speeches? Joe Biden being Vice President and his son being given a job at a princely wage with a foreign company, particularly when that foreign company is located in a country in which the Vice President has been given a special role in formulating policy?
Closer to home for me, is there something wrong with a Speaker of the state legislature being a partner in a firm that specializes in property tax appeals? Illegal, unethical, or merely unseemly?
Are we opposed to “hard corruption” (taking or offering a money or other real property bribe), to “soft corruption” (getting a political favor or appointment in exchange for another political favor or appointment), neither or both?
Should we be criminalizing politics? And how in the world will we enforce it?
Think that most of what you list should go away. (To your list I would add judges who are married to politicians or political activists.) I think one of the basic tenets of leadership is that if people think you are getting out fo your leadership position more than you are putting in, ie using your authority to personally benefit, it undermines government as a whole. So if your son or spouse wants to serve on a board, then you need to distance yourself as much as possible, or leave politics. Does anyone really believe that taking large donations, from a foreign govt or any entity, does not influence how a politician votes or behaves.
Also beyond what you list, we should have complete transparency on the finances of this who want to hold higher office. If you want privacy, dont run for a public job. If you want public money, and want to decide how public money is spent, then you need to be completely transparent so that we know that you arent self-dealing or rewarding friends and family.
n short, we should expect our leaders to lead on these ethical behaviors. Instead they do what they want until they get caught, then the voters on their team support them. How many times we heard “I know he is a sleaze but I like his policies”?
Steve
Dave, this is a timely thread.
In my experience politicians can’t seem to help themselves, from helping themselves, to rationalize and then pass measures that sometimes are wholly beneficial in giving them more power, added prestige, or more money. For instance, one S. CA community has been governed by a progressive agenda for decades. I can’t even enumerate how many back room deals, high wage local government packages, and one-sided laws have been implemented, publicly decried, and then sunk back into obscurity! Just this past week the city council now wanted to pass a bill making “lying†an offense with a stiff fine attached. So, how does a government body define and oversee someone else’s lie? This, IMO, is laying truth-telling in the subjective hands of a politicized government entity. Would I be fair in calling this akin to police state tactics???
Also, addressing whether or not, or to what degree Trump crossed the line in asking Zelensky to look into the 2016 CrowdStrike maneuvers, and later on into Biden’s interference with the investigation of the Ukraine firm’s board that Hunter Biden was paid big bucks to sit on. —- this morning former AG Murkusy concluded that Trump was guilty of being indiscreet in this conversation, but did nothing illegal. So, if true, does this type of presidential indiscretion rise to the level of corruption warranting impeachment? Or, is censuring a more applicable form of punishment?
Me, too. The reality is that changes in our society have far outpaced the changes in our system of government. A century ago there wasn’t big money to be made in government or by peddling influence and a politician’s spouse’s career was not something that was a concern.
That was always going to be a problem for Trump. The reality is that his finances are too big and complex for non-specialists to come to a realistic understanding of them but would provide practically unending fodder for ill-informed but highly motivated critics. You can hardly blame him for keeping his tax returns to himself for as long as he could.
That reality tends to keep people who’ve spent their lives running businesses out of elective office but we should also be leveling that sort of scrutiny at lifelong politicians. That we aren’t is the more pressing scandal.
Nepotism Has Papal Origins
During his papacy from 1471-1484, Sixtus IV granted many special favors to members of his family, in particular his nephews. This practice of papal favoritism was carried on by his successors, and in 1667 it was the subject of Gregorio Leti’s book Il Nepotismo di Roma-titled in the English translation, The History of the Popes’ Nephews. Shortly after the book’s appearance, nepotism began to be used in English for the showing of special favor or unfair preference to any relative by someone in any position of power, be it ecclesiastical or not. (The “nep-” spelling is from nepote, a 17th-century variant of Italian nipote, meaning “nephew.”)
I raised my eyebrow when John Kennedy made his brother A.G. It’s wrong. But you can’t criticize Reagan for listening to the woman he married, you can’t say Trump is wrong to consult his daughter, but she should not have an official paid position. Television journalists should have a disclaimer on screen if married to an elected public official or appointee. But to enforce? That should be journalism’s job, but the press is not just partisan, it’s captive.
“That was always going to be a problem for Trump. ”
I wasn’t thinking only of Trump, this should hold for everyone. Will finance for the ultra wealthy be complex? Sure, but if they want to run for public office and have the authority and the control of our money that comes with it, then accept the exposure. Here’s a thought. If you are worth $5 billion, pay some accounting firm a couple million to lay it out and make it clear.
Steve
“Also, addressing whether or not, or to what degree Trump crossed the line in asking Zelensky to look into the 2016 CrowdStrike maneuvers,….â€
I’ve been listening to impassioned arguments for 2 1/2 years on how important it is to get to the bottom of foreign interference in the 2016 election. I guess Dems now want to impeach one for making such an inquiry.
“Here’s a thought. If you are worth $5 billion, pay some accounting firm a couple million to lay it out and make it clear.â€
A worthless thought. I know how complicated my returns are. I shudder to think about a Trump, Bloomberg etc. No matter how well described, they would be unintelligible to most and simply become fodder for propaganda. Wealth is not a disqualifying attribute for office. If you desire it to be then go to work and change the rules.
Another of the very few worth listening to:
https://jonathanturley.org/2019/09/27/you-want-impeachment-find-a-quip-to-go-with-the-pro-quo/
Those two questions are interrelated. The answer to number one is “no†because the answer to number two is, “It would be enforced by the side that held the most institutional power against their political enemies, while their political allies were permitted to commit illegal acts without penalty.
The normal remedy is voters holding the politicians accountable, but it no longer works because the corruption has become so endemic that there are no moral people to vote into office.
My experience here in Chicago is that the only election of any significance is the primary and in the primary election you essentially have a choice among multiple candidates, all of whom support much the same things.
Yes, and they’re all equally unethical (or the degree of difference isn’t significant enough to matter.)
“No matter how well described, they would be unintelligible to most and simply become fodder for propaganda. ”
So your plan, wonder why I am not surprised, is to just put those wealthy people in office and trust them. If I had a choice I would rather trust Americans to figure out whose finances are bogus rather than just trust someone running for office. (To be clear, I would update this every time someone runs for office. Would bee nice to see how on paper all those people who are in Congress for 30-40 years leave with so much money.)
Steve