Author Topic: Bribing politicians  (Read 1965 times)

scottish

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2716
  • Location: Ottawa
Bribing politicians
« on: October 26, 2016, 12:37:51 PM »
There's been alot of talk in the media about bribing politicians lately.

People view Hillary Clinton's well paid talks to wall street as bribes.   In Canada, the Globe and Mail has been running exposés and stories about our federal and provincial politicians holding 'cash for access' fundraisers.

Robert Cialdini wrote a very good book called "Influence, Science and Practice".   One of the important tools of influence is reciprocation.   If you do someone a favour, they will be much more receptive to doing you a favour.    In Canada, there's alot of focus on the bribes  'access fees'.   Our political parties say that they will make everything ok by limiting the size of the access fee.   But Prof Cialdini would disagree.   The important factor is that your politician remember that you gave him a donation, not the size of the donation.

After more reflection it seems to me that we've been bribing politicians since the beginning of our societies.   Most of these bribes leave a bad taste, like that @$#$! developer who got a zoning variation to build a 6 story apartment building in our 2 story neighbourhood.   Now in some societies, bribes are called 'facilitation fees' and it's impossible to get anything done by the bureaucracy without paying them.   I used to watch our corporate ethics rules with some amusement pondering how our middle east sales guys got anything done.   (They hired another company to pay the facilitation fees.)

However in first world countries, we pride ourselves on our relatively low levels of corruption and attach stigma to the notion of bribing either our political leaders, or our government bureaucrats.    (I think a bribe to a bureaucrat has much more stigma than an 'access fee' to a politician for some reason.   Probably because the politicos have better marketing.)

So... has anyone seen a positive side to bribing our political classes?    They're certainly provided with a healthy salary and benefits, so it's not that they need the money just to get by.    Are there cases where industry leaders need to influence political leaders for the good of society?    Or is the whole thing just sordid and indicative of corruption?


TheOldestYoungMan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 778
Re: Bribing politicians
« Reply #1 on: October 26, 2016, 01:32:54 PM »
What I've never understood is why the donation translates into favors?

It seems to me, if I was running, that I'd be willing to take a donation from anyone.  Then I'd vote in the best interest of my constituency.  So on the face of it I've never understood corruption.  Taking the money isn't the bad thing, it's then casting the vote.

What're they gonna do?  Accuse you of being corrupt after you vote against them?  You just voted against them!  Clearly they didn't buy your vote!  Case dismissed, not guilty!  So that's one thing that makes me have no sympathy for politicians that do this, it's just dumb.  Take the money and run.  A friend once told me that there are people that try this, they get found in a ditch having "accidentally" driven their car off the road or found with forty-seven gunshot wounds sustained while "cleaning" their revolver.  I'm sure that type of thing doesn't happen anymore though.

So I don't think it's as simple as bribery, I think it's more subtle than that.

I think the type of person who will act in good faith isn't even given the option.  I think at the state level the money acts to prevent good people from even entering politics.  Nobody who actually sat and talked with me at a fundraiser would believe I was capable of voting in their favor, unless they could make a credible case that it would be good for the district.

So I think it's corruption along those lines.  The donation lets you make the argument, and time is limited, so you don't necessarily hear the counterargument, or the people who would make that counterargument don't ever get a chance to have access.

So that gives me a little bit of sympathy to stupid people who end up winning an election, because they get taken advantage of by malicious operators.  It takes a certain kind of discipline to go ahead and seek out people who disagree with you (particularly if alot of those who disagree with you insist on calling you a mean racist simply based on the color of your skin or your gender).  My congressman very kindly wrote back to me when I informed him of his poor decisions that he appreciated my support and would be doing whatever the hell he wanted anyway.  It was a form letter.  I take some small comfort in knowing that I'm not the only one who's opinion he is deliberately not listening to.

That's two scenarios that I find self-consistent with the behavior I see in the modern professional politician.  They're either very corrupt, or very stupid.  The third scenario is someone like Ted Cruz, who just comes off as a total asshole.  Acting entirely on his own convictions (or the convictions of his wife if you listen to people who go to his church).

So we have:
1.  Corrupted individuals (or native sociopaths)
2.  Morons
3.  Something else that looks like an asshole to at least half the country at a time.

I'd like us to try expanding the size of congress to see if that helps.  I think if we had one congressman for every four thousand people that would dramatically increase the difficulty of bribing all of congress.  It would also stress the hell out of the system for controlling who can run.  Like, if we ninja-changed that, even with a two year head start, the RNC and DNC would be like...fuck.  You'd be scraping the paint off the back room to find that many people to fill those seats without also reaching into classrooms and tagging in professors, teachers, real people who've had time to think about these issues on their own.

Right now, you only need about 40 or 50 million dollars to get essentially every vote you'd ever need to go your way, which is not a large enough number.  If congress had 5-6000 members, bribing any single one wouldn't make any damn sense.

As it stands now, for a billion dollar business it doesn't make sense to not bribe congress.  It is almost a business imperative.

The bureaucrat bribe does make more sense, and is a form of corruption I am personally familiar with.  Sometimes it is institutional, the environmental regulator that is all up your ass until you pay the inspection fee and then suddenly everything is fine.  Nevermind that your neighborhood is polluted, every polluter paid the permit fee so all is well.  That's the sort of corruption nobody thinks of as corruption, but its going on all the time everywhere.

In rural america, it's pretty common for businesses to do whatever they want in terms of fire codes in exchange for buying the fire department new engines/facilities/equipment.  Is that corruption?  I mean, I can make a solid argument that the local community gets a shitload more benefit from a 2.7 million dollar fire engine than they would out of whatever random building element wasn't quite right.

There are bribes that grease the wheel of progress when the strict regs don't quite address the current situation, and then there are bribes that undermine the nature of democracy and use the arbiter of force to deprive others of opportunity.

I don't understand the bribed though.  I've been offered an envelope full of cash and just laughed in their face.  Not because I'm unbribable, but because the amount you would need won't fit in an envelope.

scottish

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2716
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Bribing politicians
« Reply #2 on: October 26, 2016, 01:44:16 PM »
Quote
What I've never understood is why the donation translates into favors?

It seems to me, if I was running, that I'd be willing to take a donation from anyone.  Then I'd vote in the best interest of my constituency.  So on the face of it I've never understood corruption.  Taking the money isn't the bad thing, it's then casting the vote.

It's a step to building a relationship between the donor and the politician isn't it?   First, this person gave you $2000, so you'll listen to what he has to say.   Second you know this person will give you $2000, so you want him to do it again.   and again.   and again.

Your party leadership will get on your case if you don't bring in the donations regularly.

Quote
In rural america, it's pretty common for businesses to do whatever they want in terms of fire codes in exchange for buying the fire department new engines/facilities/equipment.  Is that corruption?  I mean, I can make a solid argument that the local community gets a shitload more benefit from a 2.7 million dollar fire engine than they would out of whatever random building element wasn't quite right.

This sounds like bad news.   A fire code violation that would cost more than 2.7M to fix could kill alot of people in a fire.    Is there a handy example?

Papa Mustache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1650
  • Location: Humidity, USA
Re: Bribing politicians
« Reply #3 on: October 26, 2016, 02:21:49 PM »
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverly_Hills_Supper_Club_fire

The investigation into the fire found the following deficiencies, as enumerated by the Cincinnati Enquirer:[9]

Overcrowding. Although seating charts recovered from the club after the fire show that the Cabaret Room (the largest facility in the club) normally held between 614 and 756 people, a hostess who had worked at the club for several years estimated occupancy on the date in question to be well over 925.

Inadequate fire exits. Full occupancy of the entire complex was estimated to be roughly 2,750, which under Kentucky law would require 27.5 exits. The club only had 16.5 exits, many of which were not clearly marked nor easily reached. Some exits could only be reached by passing through three or more interior doors and corridors.

Faulty wiring. Governor Julian Carroll's report on the fire called the club's wiring an "electrician's nightmare", and alleged multiple, wide-ranging code violations. Bridgetown electrician H. James Amend, who inspected the fire site at the request of a local attorney Stan Chesley a year and a half later said, "I cannot believe that any of this was ever inspected."

Lack of firewalls. This allowed the fire to spread, and in addition allowed it to draw oxygen from other areas of the complex.

Poor construction practices. The club had been built piecemeal with inadequate roof support, no common ceiling space, and highly flammable components.

Extreme safety code violations. There was no sprinkler system and no audible automatic fire alarm, and some doors were locked, yet those were not meant for public exit and caused no death.

Poor oversight by regulatory authorities. The local volunteer fire department is said by the Enquirer to have known of the deficiencies, but by law, at the time, did not have the authority to compel corrections.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2016, 02:23:34 PM by Joe Lucky »

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Bribing politicians
« Reply #4 on: October 26, 2016, 02:29:16 PM »
What I've never understood is why the donation translates into favors?

It seems to me, if I was running, that I'd be willing to take a donation from anyone.  Then I'd vote in the best interest of my constituency.  So on the face of it I've never understood corruption.  Taking the money isn't the bad thing, it's then casting the vote.

What're they gonna do?  Accuse you of being corrupt after you vote against them?

It's really simple: when the next election comes around, they'll make their donations to your opponent instead.

Bicycle_B

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1809
  • Mustachian-ish in Live Music Capital of the World
Re: Bribing politicians
« Reply #5 on: October 26, 2016, 03:29:28 PM »

So... has anyone seen a positive side to bribing our political classes?   

No.

It seems to me, if I was running, that I'd be willing to take a donation from anyone.  Then I'd vote in the best interest of my constituency.  So on the face of it I've never understood corruption.  Taking the money isn't the bad thing, it's then casting the vote.


So I think it's corruption along those lines.  The donation lets you make the argument, and time is limited, so you don't necessarily hear the counterargument, or the people who would make that counterargument don't ever get a chance to have access.  So that gives me a little bit of sympathy to stupid people who end up winning an election, because they get taken advantage of by malicious operators



I'd like us to try expanding the size of congress to see if that helps.  I think if we had one congressman for every four thousand people that would dramatically increase the difficulty of bribing all of congress.  If congress had 5-6000 members, bribing any single one wouldn't make any damn sense.  As it stands now, for a billion dollar business it doesn't make sense to not bribe congress.  It is almost a business imperative.

I have read that Texas legislators used to say "If you can't take their money, drink their bourbon and vote against 'em anyway, you don't belong here."

I've worked in political offices - being bamboozled by a slick lobbyist is something that can happen with frightening ease if you are inexperienced or uninformed.  Since being informed about all possible public issues is difficult, experience helps, hence I am personally opposed to term limits.  By observation I concluded that one benefit of seasoned, non-term-limited politicians is experience in seeing through the malicious operators.  (I hope this doesn't derail the thread!)

Re increasing the number of legislators, interesting thought.  My personal guess is that it wouldn't have the effect being sought.  Most likely the big corporations would just raise their lobbying expense.  Meanwhile completing the public business would be more difficult.  Getting any good bill (say, a carbon tax... fill in any bill you want) passed would take 10 times as much cost/effort by activists, and the actual expense for paying legislators and staff would be higher for taxpayers.  The positive impact of any one valuable leader would be diluted.  And since no one can read all the bills already, we'd just have more people passing bills they didn't read.

I think the closest to a solution we will get is to seek as much accountability and sunlight as possible.  FOIA is a great thing, for example.  Perhaps nonpartisan or automated redistricting would help.