It took literally 5 seconds to find this.
Five seconds later got me this:
You kind of made my point for me. Both letters are phrased in a way that carefully avoid a specific promise. Neither one says, âDo this, or we will reduce your grade to Fâ. They are both to the effect of, âDo this, or we will consider this in the future when we issue our grading in the future.â Why beat around the bush?
EDIT:
The Club for Growth example is particularly irrelevant. They want candidates to refrain from endorsing Trump. But endorsement is not an official act, so it cannot be subject to bribery.
Thatâs making lemonade from lemons. This kind of threat is routine. Why not spend some time looking into it (which you clearly didnât) before making broad pronouncements about it?
If it is routine, then surely you can find an example that actually contradicts me.
The first example does contradict you. Why not do your own search? I canât be bothered to accommodate your shifting goalposts.
It is simply insane to suggest that the public can not tell its representatives what they will do if they donât represent them how they would like.
In-sane.
Conversely, Iâm perfectly free to tell my representative that I will donate to his or her campaign if he/she represents me how I would like.
You mean the NRA letter that reminded legislators that they would be reviewed in the future? And that they were changing their review criteria? But didnât actually promise anyone any specific thing? No, that doesnât count for precisely the reason I discussed above.
Go ahead and find another example of someone promising $X before a vote, if you think this is routine.
The actual punishable crime is so narrow as to be virtually unenforcable, for exactly the reasons magnet is explaining. Bribery is essentially fine, as long as itâs limited to a wink and a nudge, and you donât say, âif you vote like this you will get money.â
If you tell your representative, âIf you vote Yes on this upcoming bill then I will donate $1000 to your campaignâ, you are breaking the law and itâs not even controversial.
Funny how thatâs exactly what has been driving money into politics for decades, and yet this one is wrong.
You have to draw the line somewhere.
And honestly I donât think itâs that confusing. Specifics matter, all the time. There is a huge legal difference between saying âI would love to find someone who could mow my lawnâ and âI will pay you $50 to mow my lawn next Saturdayâ. The former could never get you into legal trouble, the latter might.
This correct. A lot of people think it sucks and we all know what it really means, but this why we have courts, judges, and lawyers. What seems logical and intuitive to the layman is not always enforceable.
Yet lawyers quoted in the article disagree with your view. Maybe itâs a bit more complicated.
Trump threatened GOP members of Congress to vote for the ACA repeal bill or he would endorse their primary opponents. Thatâs a thing of value (his endorsement) in exchange for an official act. Bribery?
We Will Replace You, a leftist group, threatened blue dog Senators with primary campaigns if they did not e.g. vote against every Trump nominee. Thatâs a thing of value (no primary opponent) in exchange for an official act. Bribery?
I was responding to Banzai, who referred to run-of-the - mill advocacy.
With regards to Collins, ie donating to an opponent, the matter is indeed complicated. Lawyers have weighed in on both sides. Like I said, itâs an interesting question and weâll see how it shakes out. Anyone who thinks itâs a foregone conclusion, on either side, is kidding themselves.
LOL, your argument amounts to âTrump did it so it must be legal.â
Really? I thought those were examples which fit your frame, and offered them for you to consider and respond to.
Iâm prety sure itâs bribery all the way down and has been for decades. Itâs just lip service to the letter of the law, not to the ethical question of quid pro quo. We seem to have been fine with it when it was âhiddenâ by a thin veneer of basically nothing, so why the big deal over this one? Business as usual, just that now itâs the actual voters holding their representatives feet to the fire, rather than businesses and PACs, and the reps donât appear to like being told what to do by their constituents. Poor reps.
Iâm fine with getting bribes out of politics, but as long as itâs there, it should be free game for anyone.
Basically my feelings on this. There is no meaningful limitations on the wealthy or corporations here. And they can coordinate and do things in ways that the average voter can not.
Or do you think that the NRA people didnât use back channels to explicitly state that they would be punished/ rewarded for voting on certain bills in a specific manner? I am 100% confident that any leveragable rep who was considering voting to their displeasure got the message loud and clear.
But here, with actual voters banding together to hold a person responsible for their representation? Now this is unacceptable? Fuck that. How else, pray tell, would you suggest that the voters voice their collective displeasure?
I donât know, but for fuckâs sake please be civil about it!!
Iâm pretty sure you canât say, âMan, I would be really grateful if someone just killed my husband. Iâve got a fairly big insurance payment coming if he diesâŚâ
Or to use your extortion analogy, what if you said, âWell, Iâve never called the cops on a party I was attending, but I have been known to call them about parties that get too loudâŚâ itâs basically, âNice party youâve got here, would be a shame if someone called the copsâŚâ The idea that you have to explicitly promise specific dollar values or explicit actions is incorrect. You can imply threats or bribes and still be doing something illegal.
âWill no one rid me of this troublesome argument?â