Comment by snowwrestler
2 hours ago
> It sounds like they were defrauding people into giving them donations under false pretenses, and the transparency measures were effective at mitigating that.
There are no pretenses in political giving (at least at the U.S. federal level), because it is illegal to tie a donation to a particular position, vote, or action by the politician. It’s called a quid pro quo and is the test for whether a donation is a bribe.
In the U.S. the political system is based on people, not positions or policy. Donations to a politician are to the person. It’s not a proxy for buying an outcome.
In practice, of course people are going to support politicians who they like and think agree with them. But under the law, a politician can’t rip you off by taking your money and then voting contrary to your desires.
Which makes the initial promise to vote a certain way in exchange for donations itself illegal. That seems fine. So what is the problem with transparency, again?
What initial promise? You’ve fabricated something that was not in the comment you replied to.
This subthread is a discussion about pertains to politicians misrepresenting their voting intentions in order to get donations. My comment was a response to an argument that allowing politicians to do this is a good thing because it allows them to vote their "consciences" while pretending otherwise to people donating to them.
1 reply →