Hacker News Reader

Comment by tnuc | Hacker News Reader

Corrupt? They all follow the law.

The problem may be the way the laws get enacted. What might be considered very corrupt in one country is just how business is done in the USA.

View on HN

> What might be considered very corrupt in one country is just how business is done in the USA.

The definition of corruption is not dependent upon legal status. The wikipedia article on "Corruption" has an entire (and rather long) section that is entitled "Legal corruption".

Found the Comcast shareholder....

They literally lobby to make the laws.

Lobbying is legal though, and is a tool used by charities/public interest advocates as well as big corporations.

Yes but the difference is that what's called "lobbying" in the US often consists of what most other governments consider "bribery".

Literal quid-pro-quo bribery is illegal and people go to jail for it.

I get that you are talking about other corrupt phenomena, but we need a different word than bribery because I've run into way too many people who think our corruption problem comes from bribery.

We also need a better way for elected officials to be able to tap into citizen expertise rather than just the slice of it which is sponsored by a rent-seeking profit motive.

Make no mistake Citizens United legalized bribery you just have to wink a say it's a "campaign contribution". Everyone involved knows what it really is. Unless you actually believe that the fact that politicians pass laws that are extremely favorable to firms while receiving millions from them is unrelated, if you do I have a bridge for sale.

Citizens United was not about campaign contributions. It was about whether or not a corporation could use its funds to create materials denouncing (or praising) a candidate for office.

Summary: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v...

Full 183 page opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

My mistake I meant to also include McCutcheon v. FEC in my comment. Citizens United only got that ball rolling.

TIL, thank you.

Sure, I agree with that. The parent should have been more clear on the point they were trying to make. Leaving a exasperated comment about how Comcast lobbies to influence the law doesn't make sense, because everyone on both sides of the broadband debate uses lobbying to their advantage. We don't have politicians who are experts in every field, and they rely on outside help to inform them.

Source, particularly for the "often" part?

Excuse me, but is it not the lawmakers that are corrupt? They are the ones buying their argument (or taking their cash/benefits) and creating moats (regulatory capture and what not) for them.

Corrupt transactions are corrupt for both parties involved.

> Corrupt? They all follow the law.

These things are not mutually exclusive, particularly when the corruption has resulted in changes to the law.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com