308
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2024
308 points (100.0% liked)
politics
18065 readers
4308 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The Supreme Court basically just ruled that it's perfectly acceptable for officials to accept and even ask for bribes, just so long as they wait a few weeks after the service for which the bribe is meant to pay.
Seriously. That's exactly what this ruling in effect says - that bribes are only bribes if they're paid before the service is rendered, and if they're paid after, that's perfectly fine.
And people still wonder why I'm such a cynic...
It's not a bribe, silly. It's selling legislation.
With Net 45 terms
They actually called it a gratuity. Maybe not the worst ruling of all time but one of the most shameless.
They called it a gratuity to try to divert attention from the bludgeoningly obvious fact that it's just a postdated bribe.
This is what this country has come to. In the face of an ever-growing failure of the government to represent the will of the people because their influence has been bought and paid for by moneyed interests, the Supreme Court is legalizing bribery.
Of course, it's certainly not a coincidence that one of the institutions that's been bought and paid for is the Supreme Court itself.
The dumbest part about this ruling is it treats every bribe as unrelated to every other bribe. The majority ignored the basic trait of every human with a prefrontal cortex, that we judge future planning by past experience.
So even ignoring the "first bribe is free" effect of the decision, what will happen in effect is that legislators and politicians will pass laws they think will gain bribes, be paid by interests that benefit after the fact, and after that without a single word, have an understanding that such back-dated bribes can continue indefinitely. Regular, consistent bribery is legal and easy, under this ruling.
This is it, exactly. They are going to start voting in a way that generates themselves the most future gifts, actual justice be damned.
Who do you think is going to be able to afford future gifts? Because it sure as hell isn't going to be the little guy.
Not exactly the AP article is bad. You still can't make an agreement before the act and get paid latter or ask for a payment latter.
However as long as you keep it sufficiently wink wink nudge nudge you are fine as intent now has to be proven.
But would it help to think of it as a tipping jar for officials?
It doesn't help me, the only tip they need is to do their jobs better.
Does this now flow down as precedent for people who decide contracts?
I don't see any possible way it couldn't. Every official is going to expect a "gratuity" in exchange for approving a contract, and every contractor who expects to succeed is going to go into every deal with the understanding that they're going to be expected to pay a "gratuity" after the deal is finalized.
The upshot of it all can only be wholly institutionalized pay-to-play, with only the ultimately entirely meaningless requirement that the payment has to be deferred instead of up front.