BSM1
What? Me worry?
Hey, I've already got the first $27.68 of it in my account.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Anti-Corruption and Public Interest Act
- Thread starter icehorse
- Start date
Hey, I've already got the first $27.68 of it in my account.
I suspected that such derailing would occur. How about discussing the message, not the messenger?
Well there is litigiousness out in the world, more or less decoupled from DC.
As for whether corruption in DC is exacerbated by the fact that most politicians are lawyers, while that exacerbation is probably true, I also think that much of the corruption originates from corporations.
Last edited:
Corruption comes from the top down, ie, government.
Another proposal which should separate corporate from governmental corruption....
No government, federal/state/local should be able
to work special tax deals with a single corporation.
All tax policies should apply to all businesses.
Mostly agreed. But I would say corruption "includes" the government. But it would seem that often it's the corp. that makes the initial offer to tango.
I found a write-up about the law with this quote from her that to me is important to note in spite of the attempts by some to derail a conversation about the proposal itself. Among other things, the article noted she was opposed to an Obama administration appointment for too close a connection with the "government-lobbyist complex". https://www.vox.com/2018/8/21/17760...ruption-act-bill-lobbying-ban-president-trump
Of course the current regime would have this vetoed because the last thing that is wanted is a stop to shoveling money from the government into their personal swamps and hiding the fact.
From the VOX article:
“Inside Washington, some of these proposals will be very unpopular, even with some of my friends,” she said. “Outside Washington, I expect that most people will see these ideas as no-brainers and be shocked they’re not already the law.”
[here are the key parts]
Of course the current regime would have this vetoed because the last thing that is wanted is a stop to shoveling money from the government into their personal swamps and hiding the fact.
From the VOX article:
“Inside Washington, some of these proposals will be very unpopular, even with some of my friends,” she said. “Outside Washington, I expect that most people will see these ideas as no-brainers and be shocked they’re not already the law.”
[here are the key parts]
- A lifetime ban on lobbying for presidents, vice presidents, members of Congress, federal judges, and Cabinet secretaries.
- Multi-year lobbying bans for federal employees (both Congressional staffers and employees of federal agencies). The span of time would be least two years, and six years for corporate lobbyists.
- Requiring the president and vice president to place assets that could present a conflict of interest — including real estate — in a blind trust and sell them off.
- Requiring the IRS to release eight years’ worth of tax returns for all presidential and vice presidential candidates, as well as requiring them to release tax returns during each year in office. The IRS would also have to release two years’ worth of tax returns for members of Congress, and require them to release tax returns for each lawmaker’s year in office.
- Banning members of Congress, Cabinet secretaries, federal judges, White House staff, senior congressional staff, and other officials from owning individual stocks while in office.
- Changing the rulemaking process of federal agencies to severely restrict the ability of corporations or industry to delay or influence rulemaking.
- Creating a new independent US Office of Public Integrity, which would enforce the nation’s ethics laws, and investigate any potential violations. The office would also try to strengthen open records laws, making records more easily accessible to the public and the press.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Seems like a great idea. Her affordable housing bill as well. I am not so sure what i think abput her capitalism bill. Not surprised to see the derailing in this thread.
Rich people love to sue. I have worked to long for to many to know anything else is alternate reality.
So we need a tool to prosecute those in & doing business with government.
Entrapment is the most powerful one to trap those who would offer or accept bribes.
Last edited:
Curious George
Veteran Member
I wonder if anyone has any actual objections to this bill?
Suing costs money.
It's not worth doing unless there's some objective which can't
be achieved some other way, eg, prevent patent infringement.
Btw, the poor also love to sue. And they have some advantages,
eg, waived court fees, lawyers who work for a contingency fee.
I've dealt with these professional suers. The courts will let even
the most frivolous suits go all the way. Often, the goal isn't to
win, but to threaten expensive defense so as to extort settlement.
Corporations are people too, which have individual rights like a regular actual single person. Or some bizaare interpretation projected onto the constitution. Apparently the conservative side of the court took RBGs interpretation of the constitution to heart literally.
Ugh....don't make me read the whole thing carefully.
But what I've seen smacks of too much regulation
with too little benefit.
Rich people dont care they constantly use it as a tool to bully. The richer you are the more leverage you have in this system. So what if it costs me a million its going to cost you that much as well and i can afford it and you cant. Thats the legal system in how it works to wealths advantage.
I begin to suspect some unfamiliarity with the motives of rich people.
There are legal bullies, eg, Donald Trump, government.
But I've never personally known anyone who considered
meritless lawsuits as a desirable thing to file.
Curious George
Veteran Member
What is regulation with too little benefit in the bill?
A lot of limitations on what people can do regarding lobbying.
She concentrates on the who, rather than on the what.
Looks pretty good to me.
Curious George
Veteran Member
This is to limit revolving door politics. I think that is of extreme benefit.
Maybe some...maybe not, since much expertise evaporates.
I say it would be more effective to aggressively prosecute
crimes, including those resulting from entrapment.