> Russian oligarchs have donated millions of pounds to the Conservative Party
I don't understand how this is possible. Is it legal in Britain for foreigners to finance political parties?
I don't understand how this is possible. Is it legal in Britain for foreigners to finance political parties?
The point is these guys have visas, residency etc., they aren't a criminal class, in the UK.
It's funny how until the Ukraine crisis, every time I mentioned how serious a problem this was, people told me I was exaggerating. Even in the first week of the war, that happened here on HN.
The London Laundromat is a significant corrosive influence.
Well, they _are_ a criminal class here. It's just they've been getting away with it for some time because they're under the protection of another criminal class - our leaders. With any luck the ramifications of this Russia/Ukraine business will cause the unravelling of much more than that little squirt Putin.
It depends how you see it, I suppose.
What I mean is this:
Basically all of these oligarchs come here to do legitimate business, just with unexplained wealth. And that's the loophole; unexplained wealth. You have to spend it in a way that brings you attention, before anyone even asks.
So here they are not acting criminally; their wealth is only criminal if someone can prove it was illegally obtained in Russia, and that is quite a high bar, considering the source of the wealth and the system in which it was created.
It's not just for Russian oligarchs, either; unexplained wealth is at least as big a problem from the middle east.
And as you likely know, campaigners even tried to get Donald Trump to explain how he bought a golf course with cash using an unexplained wealth order. I do wonder if that will get revisited, since it was almost certainly cash of dubious, and quite likely Russian, origin.
As I see it, It's not "unexplained wealth" per se that's at issue. I find that concept (the assumption that having money you can't account for is _alone_ automatic grounds for suspicion) quite despotic and authoritarian. In the US it's become a means by which police can just "legally" confiscate someone's savings. That can only go to dark places for ordinary people who have some luck with their speculations.
It's not the money, it's what they do with it and the sort of behaviour they "buy". There's a litany of serious crime (SOCA) and actions by NCA or local police that mysteriously dead-end. Intimidation of judges, police and journalists, bribery, legal threats designed to silence investigations (SLAPP) has multiplied within Britain thanks to "oligarchs".
For years our own leaders have allowed this to fester, turned a blind eye, or been involved more closely - a connection between Peter Mandelson and Oleg Deripaska is just one of the few exposed. Earlier economic crime bills have stalled, and existing "investigatory powers" legislation has rarely, if ever, been used successfully against these people.
This has led to new intelligence groups, think-tanks and university research departments set up around countering "Lawfare". Corruption is global, as you say. But let's be honest here; just because someone is not a _technically_ convicted criminal it doesn't mean they not de-facto criminals to a standard most ordinary people would accept. The problem is getting anything through a courts system so underfunded, amidst a society so corrupted by money.
What I said is that I hope this Russo-Ukraine war has side effects (far beyond ousting Putin) that blow-back on our own corrupt officials.
I'm unconcerned about this with respect to UWOs. They don't seem to be too difficult to fight off with documentation, for one thing.
> Intimidation of judges, police and journalists, bribery, legal threats designed to silence investigations (SLAPP) has multiplied within Britain thanks to "oligarchs".
This is true, but it's far from uniquely the work of the wealthier end of the Russian diaspora. There are other examples wherein all the money has been made in the UK.
The difference with the oligarch money is that everyone knows it is stolen wealth and pretends not to see it. You can take a donation from some hedge fund viper and hold your head up that it's just business. When you accept donations without due diligence that you know would fail due diligence, you've been suborned. It's a double victory: the oligarch both pays for the legislation (or non-legislation) he wants, and also envelops the politician in the stink that he himself is used to.
But the true corrupting power gained from getting someone to turn a blind eye is in getting them to do it more than once, because then they are compromised without deniability; that's why you make the big donations, over a long period of time.
Insightful observation. I am reminded of the Bluttkit (Blood cement?) treatement used by SS officers on new recruits.
An individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States and has not been lawfully admitted to the U.S. for permanent residence, as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(20); or ...
Suggesting that you can also donate if you have permanent resident status (aka 'green card holder'), regardless of citizenship.
[0] https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate...
Our citizenship systems are similar but not completely identical.
Doesn't take a genius to see the potential long-term negative implications this creates. It's clearly not going to liberalize China or Chinese diaspora temporarily living abroad at large, let's not make that catastrophic error again. It was just a couple days ago that a Chinese student in the US stabbed a Tiananmen activist Chinese defector to death, in public. Thanks Henry Kissinger.
It's kind of time to take this stuff seriously before it catches us by surprise more than it already has.
It worked for Western Germany, not for Eastern Germany. The West was rebuilt by an Allied council and the East by a Soviet Bloc. After the economic collapse of the USSR and reunification of Germany, Western Germany extensively prepared for the transition process. Another example of this is North and South Korea, prior to Korean War North Korea was the dominant economy. North has not collapse due to Chinese support.
Japan was also rebuilt with the US's help under the condition of democratic reforms. Japan saw immense economic growth afterward under that system.
The Middle East is difficult due to a lack of cohesive national identities in the countries stemming from longstanding tribalistic tendencies, without proximally supporting liberal institutions. Well, except Israel, but that's an obvious conflict of interest. Autocrats and monarchies overcome culture barriers with force and threat of force.
As for China, they were handed a MASSIVE economic opportunity for reestablishing diplomatic relations--lopsided exchange in China's favor IMO. This is also why the US has the "Rust Belt" and other economic dead zones throughout middle America that were once manufacturing towns. It may even help explain, the roaring-80s. The US did not anticipate an economic transfer as fast as it occurred. Different topic... Rapid Chinese economic growth empowered the CCP to maintain its status as a champion of the people for improving the quality of life across the nation as a product of the CCPs policies, which occurred at the rate and ease that it did largely thanks to Kissinger coaxing Nixon to made a "great deal" with Mao. And, this isn't meant to dismiss the Chinese population's agency fostering the growth, only that it wouldn't have happened anywhere near as fast as it did without the US trade deal.
As for much, not all, of Eastern Europe, and, including Russia. Soviet corruption remained and didn't see enough economic growth to justify embracing liberal democracy. Many people think or are lead to believe that life was better under Soviet rule, even though the mechanism of economic growth it implemented was doomed to fail in the long-run.
Those nations were conquered!
This is why the "Citizens United" decision was so horrible and should be reversed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv5mI6ClPGc
Capitalism and Free Speech
This is what Citizens United wanted, but it's not the outcome of the Supreme Court case.
The outcome of the case was the gutting of BCRA 2002[1], which previously prevented unlimited corporate and union spending in political campaigns. The rest (anonymized funding, "super" PACs) are logical consequences of the overturning of that law and American corporate structure.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act
>" This would be legal in the United States as well. They would just first form a corporation and then donate it from there."
These statements were factually incorrect. You are making different claims.
Technically you are right, they can't donate directly to campaigns by forming a corporation here, but they can get close enough that if you squint you can't tell the difference.
But it's easier to create a super pac, accept unlimited money, and then pay out in whatever way is effective.
Corporations can't donate money to campaigns, either. (They can spend money on them, or donate funds to non-campaign groups that spend money independently of campaigns, but not donate to politicians.)
But donating millions like it's commonplace in the US I find pretty questionable. And it leads to corruption like the "pay to play" lists.