WaterMan Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/13/politics/60-...losi/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayItAintSoJoe Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Corruption. I can't believe they can even get away with that. I guess it's just another reason why people spend millions to get a $200K/yr job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 there's no way that this isn't corruption Although Punkett of Tammany Hall would sure be impressed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathpig Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 I lived near San Francisco for about 4 years, and there were a lot of stories about her husband's business dealings and government deals/decisions that just magically worked out for him. She's not dumb enough to let anything point directly back at her, but there's been a pretty long history of suspicion. I'm sure it's the same everywhere-- only the stupid ones are blatant enough to get caught. I've complained here a number of times about 'soft' corruption. The problem is we never see all the money and how it changes hands because the donors and the receivers all have LLCs/non-profits/not-for-profits/etc. that they hide behind and shell game all the cash between. They accrue and spend favors over a long period (political appointments on one side, cushy private sector jobs on the other), donate into trusts, and all sorts of end arounds on the ability for anyone but an army of forensic accountants to track what's actually going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Corruption. I can't believe they can even get away with that. I guess it's just another reason why people spend millions to get a $200K/yr job. Yep. Corruption all the way. Scumbags. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeductiveNun Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Although Punkett of Tammany Hall would sure be impressed. Read that book as part of my Political Parties class I took as an undergrad. Very interesting and entertaining read I thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Corruption. I can't believe they can even get away with that. I guess it's just another reason why people spend millions to get a $200K/yr job. Agreed. Pretty much BS that you can be on a committee to get non-public information on important financial events and then make stock decisions on it while someone that works for the company is arrested for insider training for doing the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted November 14, 2011 Author Share Posted November 14, 2011 My signature explains it I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Seeing as companies are people thanks to the Republicans, I see this "soft" corruption as little more than a thank you note from a friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 (edited) Virtually all legislation that makes it through Congress, even when it looks like it's for the benefit of "the people", has some vested interests sticky fingers all over it. Nothing gets decided on it's pure merits any more, it's all payola. ETA: Oh yeah.........definitely corruption in the OP. Edited November 15, 2011 by Ursa Majoris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathpig Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Seeing as companies are people thanks to the Republicans, I see this "soft" corruption as little more than a thank you note from a friend. Okay. Let's take this step by step. First.... read this, specifically under 'Legislation'. 1) Companies are not people thanks to Republicans. They are people thanks to legislation that has existed in this country for AT LEAST 150 years (see, United States Code). This decision has been affirmed by numerous Supreme Court cases over that 150something years. It didn't just magically happen in 2010. Note: The Republican party, as it exists today, did not exist when the United States Code was written. Also note: Supreme Court justices are generally rated as 'conservative' or 'liberal', not Republican or Democrat. 2) Political corruption has existed for far longer than as 'payment' for the Citizens United case. In any case, it would be odd to pay Congressmen for a Supreme Court decision. 3) Political corruption is not in any way limited to just Republicans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathpig Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Virtually all legislation that makes it through Congress, even when it looks like it's for the benefit of "the people", has some vested interests sticky fingers all over it. Nothing gets decided on it's pure merits any more, it's all payola. ETA: Oh yeah.........definitely corruption in the OP. It's gone on for FAR longer, but the Internet is making it harder for them to hide it now. I always think of Distinguished Gentlemen which, at the time, probably seemed too absurd to be real, but today seems mild by comparison. Heck, just getting legislation through all the Congressional procedures requires, essentially, bribery (can you get your bill on the floor, can you get a vote on it, can you get enough votes to pass it, etc.). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted November 15, 2011 Author Share Posted November 15, 2011 Okay. Let's take this step by step. First.... read this, specifically under 'Legislation'. 1) Companies are not people thanks to Republicans. They are people thanks to legislation that has existed in this country for AT LEAST 150 years (see, United States Code). This decision has been affirmed by numerous Supreme Court cases over that 150something years. It didn't just magically happen in 2010. Note: The Republican party, as it exists today, did not exist when the United States Code was written. Also note: Supreme Court justices are generally rated as 'conservative' or 'liberal', not Republican or Democrat. I think this 150 year old ruling needs to be heard again. Especially since a handful of normal citizens can't wreck the economy like a couple of corporation "people." Judges may not be rated as R or D, but they sure know which R or D put them in that seat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Okay. Let's take this step by step. First.... read this, specifically under 'Legislation'. 1) Companies are not people thanks to Republicans. They are people thanks to legislation that has existed in this country for AT LEAST 150 years (see, United States Code). This decision has been affirmed by numerous Supreme Court cases over that 150something years. It didn't just magically happen in 2010. Note: The Republican party, as it exists today, did not exist when the United States Code was written. Also note: Supreme Court justices are generally rated as 'conservative' or 'liberal', not Republican or Democrat. 2) Political corruption has existed for far longer than as 'payment' for the Citizens United case. In any case, it would be odd to pay Congressmen for a Supreme Court decision. 3) Political corruption is not in any way limited to just Republicans. I don't give two chits how you want to rationalize it, the Citizens United decision throws open the gates for corporations to buy elections directly, an expansion of their previous ability to buy the politicians after the fact. If you think that's cool based on some legal mumbo-jumbo, then that's your opinion. Many of us see it as yet another step towards plutocratic oligarchy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathpig Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 I don't give two chits how you want to rationalize it, the Citizens United decision throws open the gates for corporations to buy elections directly, an expansion of their previous ability to buy the politicians after the fact. If you think that's cool based on some legal mumbo-jumbo, then that's your opinion. Many of us see it as yet another step towards plutocratic oligarchy. I felt the need to correct a completely nonsensical statement. Personally, I'd prefer if all fundraising was taken out of politics and I'd like it more still if all the quid pro quo arrangements that occur after being elected were eliminated. I'm not rationalizing anything, I'm showing/explaining why the decision went the way it did. The result was entirely predictable based on over a century of legal precedence. Whether or not that legal precedence is a good thing (or that Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad is legitimate precedence) is another discussion. I'm not sure I want to rehash the entire Citizens United fiasco, but it's important to note a few points about that case. Citizens United upheld requirements for disclaimer and disclosure by sponsors of advertisements. Additionally, it did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office. Before Citizens United, corporations, unions, and other profit and non-profit/not-for-profit organizations could sponsor and run political ads. After Citizens United, they still can. All the case did is change *when* they could run the ads. In reality, the noise about the case is utterly disproportionate to the actual effects of the case, given the things people are complaining about weren't actually core issues in the case (corporation personhood and organizations spending on elections-- both decided LONG before). We could have a discussion of what the economy looks like in a world where corporations don't exist (as removing their designation as 'people' under the law all but makes their existence pointless), but I think the ramifications of that decision are CONSIDERABLY larger than you'd expect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowboyGal2011 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 See, smallpox was all but eliminated in 1978 and the U.S. already has vast stockpiles of the original vaccine. Why would the current administration push so vigorously to invest millions of dollars in what could rightly be described as an unnecessary (and untested) drug? As the saying goes, “follow the money.” The company that scored the federal contract is called Siga Technologies and they won it through a “sole-source” procurement; they are the only company that will be doing business with the Feds. And here’s the best part: the controlling shareholder of Siga Technologies is billionaire Ronald O. Perelman, one of the world’s richest men and a longtime Democratic Party donor, reports the Los Angeles Times. Moreover, back in June 2010, Siga named Andrew Sterns (former head of the SEIU) to its board. That certainly raises some eyebrows. Surprisingly enough, the deal gets even more suspicious. Newser reports: In a Solyndra-esque tale, White House officials overrode bureaucrats who advised against the deal and Siga’s high price, replacing government negotiators and blocking other companies from submitting competing bids . . . Half a Billion $$$. Read more: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-admi.../#ixzz1dncpqKNc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.