Hacker News Reader

Comment by mapontosevenths | Hacker News Reader

> altering your stance on a given position to maximize donations you'd collect

Money exchanged to alter the conduct of a person in position of power... That sounds familiar. I wonder if there's a name for that?

"Bribe: money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bribe

View on HN

Don't you see, someone just has to say "this is not a bribe", and, like magic, they can finagle their way out of their corruption. "Bribery" has a very narrow definition, which conveniently doesn't apply to the corruption in question.

It's clearly not a bribe. The politicians change their judgement/conduct BEFORE the money is given or promised (in anticipation of) so it's fine.

..../s (you know, because what's serious these days is hard to tell)

Y'all in the US are so, so cactus haha.

Well, perhaps that's more extortion than a bribe?

"Nice business you have there, would be a shame if I changed my conduct back again, wouldn't it?"

Does that work? Congress is so broken now that nothing happens. Sayings like “act of Congress” describing slow progress it would be simple for the lobbyist to just back another candidate to eliminate this “would be a shame” threat

>Y'all in the US are so, so cactus haha.

Are there any countries that don't use the quid pro quo definition of bribery? At best, they try to keep a lid on it by capping campaign contributions, but that's not really "bribery is illegal" (if we accept the more liberal definition), more like "there's a limit on how much you can bribe".

The Ottoman Empire kind of acknowledged the futility of trying to suppress corruption, opting instead to codify it and set thresholds for excessive abuse. Progressive for its day, it only partially succeeded since enforcement was no less prone to corrupt influence. As the romans famously said, “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” Literally: “Who will guard the guards themselves?”

It's why the 3 branches of government worked so well for the US for so long. They each want to protect themselves, and are effectively at odds with each other unless there is almost universal agreement on something.

However that has completely fallen apart with a toothless Congress, and a executive branch that can stack the 3rd branch with similar minded idealogues.

Isn't that pretty close to the actual position of your supreme court though?

Whew!

Glad I haven’t been bribing mechanics that work on my car.

I only pay them after the work is done!

To put it on your level, the mechanic works for you not us. Working for us involves a higher bar (or should).

Edit: typos

Reply on news.ycombinator.com