NationStates Jolt Archive

I apologize if this has been previously posted, but I found it a resounding victory for freedom. Link (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA112806.01B.ethics_decision.2eede27.html).

AUSTIN — A Texas official who receives any sum of cash as a gift can satisfy state disclosure laws by reporting the money simply as "currency" without specifying the amount, the Texas Ethics Commission reiterated Monday.

The 5-3 decision outraged watchdog groups and some officials who accused the commission of failing to enforce state campaign finance laws.

"What the Ethics Commission has done is legalize bribery in the state of Texas. We call on the commission to resign en masse," said Tom "Smitty" Smith, who heads Texas Citizen, an Austin-based group that advocates for campaign finance reform.

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, a Democrat, said the "currency" interpretation would render it "perfectly legal to report the gift of 'a wheelbarrow' without reporting that the wheelbarrow was filled with cash."

In a letter to commissioners, Earle called such an analysis "absurd and out of step with both the law and current public attitudes and concerns about corruption in government."

Monday's ruling was preceded by little discussion.

At their last meeting, commissioners said they would welcome more precise reporting but were powerless to require it, based on current laws.

"The question here is whether the description of a gift of cash of over $250 is required to include the value of the gift," the Ethics Commission opinion said in part. "The term 'description' is not defined in Chapter 572 of the Government Code, nor is it defined anywhere else in the Government Code."

"In our opinion, the requirement to describe a gift of cash or cash equivalent may be satisfied by including in the description the following: 'currency,' or a description of the gift, such as 'check' or 'money order,' as appropriate," the ruling stated.

This was the second time the commission ruled on the issue of cash gift disclosures. In March, it ruled that a gift of two checks for $100,000 could be listed simply as "checks."

The case stems from a June 2005 disclosure filed by Dallas businessman Bill Ceverha, a board member of the State Employees Retirement System board. The system oversees a nearly $20 billion fund that provides benefits for 250,000 retired state workers.

Ceverha disclosed that he received a gift, described only as a "check," from Houston home builder Bob Perry, the largest Republican donor in the state.

Both have said the check for $50,000 was supposed to help cover legal fees Ceverha incurred defending himself against a lawsuit related to his role as treasurer of former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's Texas fundraising operation.

The disclosure issue is sure to surface during next year's legislative session. Legislators have filed at least four bills for campaign finance, and Gov. Rick Perry has said he would support changing the current statute to require more precise reporting requirements.

It's about time that a decision was made to protect our constitutional rights; we should be allowed to give money to whomever we want and not be forced to disclose to everybody the amount of money received. Politics is based upon "greasing the wheel" -- it's an age-old American tradition. The constituents are entitled to depose anyone they deem corrupt, but the state cannot infringe upon the privacy of a state office holder. It's about time that somebody acknowledged this fact and protected our heritage and our civil liberties, and I'm glad it was the conservatives.

we should be allowed to give money to whomever we want and not be forced to disclose to everybody the amount of money received.
And when the "person" giving the money is a multi-billion dollar conglomerate? One that wouldn't mind sparing a few million bucks in order to buy a legislator that will pass some seriously bad laws?

In any system where power is delegated, the delegates will only be imperfect representatives of the will of their constituents, and it is as such absurd to claim that corruption will somehow be guarded against solely through democratic means - especially if the information need not be disclosed.

If the state office holders do not wish to reveal their financial dealings to the public, they are welcome to avoid being state office holders.

Ethics don't matter, as long as you have a loophole to strangle them with.
What a PROUD day for Texas. :rolleyes:

So you have no problem with, say, MoveOn.org giving lots of money to Democrats to pass extream left-wing laws that it writes then?

Hooray for buying government!!!

So you have no problem with, say, MoveOn.org giving lots of money to Democrats to pass extream left-wing laws that it writes then?We both know that it's mainly businesses that will use money to further their goals.

I apologize if this has been previously posted, but I found it a resounding victory for freedom. Link (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA112806.01B.ethics_decision.2eede27.html).



It's about time that a decision was made to protect our constitutional rights; we should be allowed to give money to whomever we want and not be forced to disclose to everybody the amount of money received. Politics is based upon "greasing the wheel" -- it's an age-old American tradition. The constituents are entitled to depose anyone they deem corrupt, but the state cannot infringe upon the privacy of a state office holder. It's about time that somebody acknowledged this fact and protected our heritage and our civil liberties, and I'm glad it was the conservatives.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, no. The last thing we need is more corporate influence in politics.

We both know that it's mainly businesses that will use money to further their goals.


Which means bye bye to enviroment issues, workers rights, and so on.:(

Which means bye bye to enviroment issues, workers rights, and so on.:(Don't worry! Democrats are less likely to let businesses fill their pockets than Republicans and they are currently in control of both houses of Congress!

So you have no problem with, say, MoveOn.org giving lots of money to Democrats to pass extream left-wing laws that it writes then?

No, of course not. I'd be proud of them if those socialist monkeys were able to raise money to support a political group. It would be like they finally grew up and learned to accept our system of government.

And when the "person" giving the money is a multi-billion dollar conglomerate? One that wouldn't mind sparing a few million bucks in order to buy a legislator that will pass some seriously bad laws?

You forget the Republican philosophy - all corporations are always altruistic, always.

It is as such absurd to claim that corruption will somehow be guarded against solely through democratic means - especially if the information need not be disclosed.

Corruption itself is not the problem, but rather its effects. Such a practice is detrimental to the public welfare only insofar as the politicians may make decisions based on bribery which conflict with the public interest. However, in such cases, it will be immediately apparent that a flawed choice was made, and the candidate would suffer when it came time for re-election. If a politician performs his job unwisely, then he will not be rewarded a second term -- thus, he would do well to steer away from accepting money in exchange for hurting his constituents.

We both know that it's mainly businesses that will use money to further their goals.
And since the super-rich guiding those businesses lean over to the left pretty heavily, I wonder where your argument goes . . .

It would be like they finally grew up and learned to accept our system of government.
Bribery and corruption?

You forget the Republican philosophy - all corporations are always altruistic, always.

Of course not. However, intelligent self-interest will guide the US on a crash course with incredible affluence. An invisible hand guides the system, and it operates quite smoothly based on selfishness -- human nature cannot be denied, only molded into an acceptable form.

Bribery and corruption?

I was referring to our capitalist system in particular, but that too.

Corruption itself is not the problem, but rather its effects. Such a practice is detrimental to the public welfare only insofar as the politicians may make decisions based on bribery which conflict with the public interest. However, in such cases, it will be immediately apparent that a flawed choice was made, and the candidate would suffer when it came time for re-election. If a politician performs his job unwisely, then he will not be rewarded a second term -- thus, he would do well to steer away from accepting money in exchange for hurting his constituents.

You have unjustified faith in the efficacy of our political system.

There is no reason to suspect that the voters will take every position into account come election day. There is no reason to suspect that any replacement for the corrupt politician will be any better. There is the prevailing fact than an action was just taken which was not based upon concern for the will of the public or the welfare of the public. And there is the possibility that the money might be great enough that the politician might be willing to sacrifice her job for it.

Bribery messes up the incentives structure of politicians even more than it already is, and with the highly imperfect political system we presently have, that is a bad idea.

And since the super-rich guiding those businesses lean over to the left pretty heavily, I wonder where your argument goes . . .It isn't the super-rich we need to worry about; they tend to have it made. ;)

There is no reason to suspect that the voters will take every position into account come election day.

But that is a central tenet of any democratic system; we must assume that the voters will intelligently consider every aspect of the campaign and draw a logical conclusion from all the facts which they are presented. I do not suspect it's true, but it is, nonetheless, the basis for our system of government. We must trust the voters to make the correct decision, regardless if they are capable of doing so or not. Anything else would detract from democracy.

An invisible hand guides the systemNope.

It isn't the super-rich we need to worry about; they tend to have it made. ;)
And their white guilt and desire to keep everyone else south of the 7-figure line (there's nothing worse than someone who earned their money stinking up the country club) can be relied upon to counter any dangers of corporate greed.
Checks and Balances, mon ami.

But that is a central tenet of any democratic system; we must assume that the voters will intelligently consider every aspect of the campaign and draw a logical conclusion from all the facts which they are presented. I do not suspect it's true, but it is, nonetheless, the basis for our system of government.

No, it isn't. You underestimate democratic theorists.

No one assumes that the voters "will intelligently consider every aspect of the campaign"; no one has the time. All that is assumed is that they will consider some aspects, especially those aspects important to them, and this consideration will be enough to make the result more or less representative.

All representative democracy - and even direct democracy - are highly imperfect representations of the will of the population. To dilute it even further is not a good idea.

We must trust the voters to make the correct decision, regardless if they are capable of doing so or not. Anything else would detract from democracy.

What would detract from democracy would be to make politicians accountable to anybody other than the public and the courts, which is exactly what bribery would do. Their accountability to the public is limited enough as it is.

I was referring to our capitalist system in particular, but that too.

Why accept it when we can make it better

Personally I think I might be for getting rid of the caps but with full disclosure

Of course not. However, intelligent self-interest will guide the US on a crash course with incredible affluence. An invisible hand guides the system, and it operates quite smoothly based on selfishness -- human nature cannot be denied, only molded into an acceptable form.

The invisible hand has been proven again and again to be a figment of stupid people's imaginations.

But that is a central tenet of any democratic system; we must assume that the voters will intelligently consider every aspect of the campaign and draw a logical conclusion from all the facts which they are presented. I do not suspect it's true, but it is, nonetheless, the basis for our system of government. We must trust the voters to make the correct decision, regardless if they are capable of doing so or not. Anything else would detract from democracy.

Part of being able to intelligently consider is having full knowledge ... you cant accurately consider if you dont have any information

So why are you against reporting donations? seems like it would help democracy to me

human nature cannot be denied

And human nature is... what?

All representative democracy - and even direct democracy - are highly imperfect representations of the will of the population. To dilute it even further is not a good idea.

I am not diluting the will of the people; they will be able to vote as they always have based on the actions and proposals of particular candidate. If they feel a candidate has let them down, they will be able to vote against him. However, simply accepting a bribe is not a bad act in itself -- only doing a poor job based on that bribe is betraying the trust of the people. Our civil liberties, in this case, are more important than other considerations; our private lives should not be exposed to the public.

What would detract from democracy is would be to make politicians accountable to anybody other than the public and the courts, which is exactly what bribery would do. Their accountability to the public is limited enough as it is.

Would the performance of a politician be affected by how much money he took in bribes? Does the amount of money he accepted reflect poorly upon his achievements? No. The only criteria on which a public official should be judged is his actions -- what bills he passed, to whom he distributed public funds, etc., not what he did with his private life.

And human nature is... what?

Self-interest.

I am not diluting the will of the people; they will be able to vote as they always have based on the actions and proposals of particular candidate.

Of course, but now you have added a competing incentive to ignore their opinions. That is dilution.

Our civil liberties, in this case, are more important than other considerations; our private lives should not be exposed to the public.

Yours should not be. Mine should not be. But a politician who does not want to deal with transparency should opt for a different career choice.

Would the performance of a politician be affected by how much money he took in bribes? Does the amount of money he accepted reflect poorly upon his achievements? No. The only criteria on which a public official should be judged is his actions -- what bills he passed, to whom he distributed public funds, etc., not what he did with his private life.

What does this have to do with what I said?

Self-interest.

Right. And that's why no one ever has children, why no one cares for their friends and relatives, no one ever gives to charity, no one ever sacrifices their life for a cause seen to be worthy, and you ardently reject utilitarianism.

...simply accepting a bribe is not a bad act in itself...

And yours is the nation with a mission to 'export democracy'? Shorely shum mishtake. Please consider that the system you are defending is one of the least representative ways to approach democracy and the possibility that the US may not be the shining light of truth and justice that one or two people seem to feel it may be. Your country's report card reads '"Must try harder." Now go do your collective homework.

Oh, and criminalise bribery, for f**k's sake. It's bleedin' obvious.

What does this have to do with what I said?

I'm saying that the amount of money a politician takes in bribes is personal information which is extraneous to his job performance. Politicians are not compelled to disclose everything about themselves to the public, only the policies which they wish to take. Anything else should not impact their campaign, including their favorite TV show, their shoe size, or the amount of money they took in bribes.

Right. And that's why no one ever has children, why no one cares for their friends and relatives, no one ever gives to charity, no one ever sacrifices their life for a cause seen to be worthy.

Those are all cases of self-interest, although not necessarily monetary self-interest.

I'm saying that the amount of money a politician takes in bribes is personal information which is extraneous to his job performance.

Except it is obviously not extraneous. If it were, no one would bribe him.

Those are all cases of self-interest, although not necessarily monetary self-interest.

Only if you absurdly broaden the definition of self-interest to include any kind of motive. But that's irrelevant, because your whole point about capitalism referenced monetary self-interest.

I'm saying that the amount of money a politician takes in bribes is personal information which is extraneous to his job performance. Politicians are not compelled to disclose everything about themselves to the public, only the policies which they wish to take. Anything else should not impact their campaign, including their favorite TV show, their shoe size, or the amount of money they took in bribes.
Wrong, as usual. Large bribes act as an incentive to serve the interests of the bribers. Since the only organizations capable of giving large bribes (or needing to give them in the first place) tend to be large, unethical corporations, the end result will be that our representatives will truckle to the whims of these conglomerates even more, and value the well-being of the people even less.

And don't try to argue with that. The vast majority of elections are won by the candidate with the greatest war chest. Allowing undisclosed bribes would ensure that everything I described above would come to pass.

Except it is obviously not extraneous. If it were, no one would bribe him.

And if he performed his job poorly, it would similarly become obvious to his constituents. If it didn't become obvious, the bribe would be ineffectual or he would have ignored it.

No, of course not. I'd be proud of them if those socialist monkeys were able to raise money to support a political group. It would be like they finally grew up and learned to accept our system of government.
I'd never thought I would say this, but get the hell out of the US. Go back to whatever former communist nation you suposedly came from because you surely do NOT understand the ideals that the US was founded upon.

Of course not. However, intelligent self-interest will guide the US on a crash course with incredible affluence. An invisible hand guides the system, and it operates quite smoothly based on selfishness -- human nature cannot be denied, only molded into an acceptable form.
If Adam Smith heard of how you were twisting the language of his economic philosophy, he would probably challenge you to a duel. (Well, he might not, as he was rather a wimp, but damnit, he would want to!)
The invisible hand was never meant to seem so far reaching. all it was meant to explain was the process where if people want a product (Like, say, cars) and are willing to pay for it, then someone will make the product, and resources willing, will make it in sufficient quantity to satisfy the demand.

Also, one major trend in Rome before it fell was the easy bribery of it's officials.

And their white guilt and desire to keep everyone else south of the 7-figure line (there's nothing worse than someone who earned their money stinking up the country club) can be relied upon to counter any dangers of corporate greed.
Checks and Balances, mon ami.Now if checks and balances had prevented the dismantling of American public transportation or the Clean Skies Initiative and its de facto amnesty for criminal activity, I might not disagree with you. But alas, there seem to be no working checks and balances.

It's about time that a decision was made to protect our constitutional rights; we should be allowed to give money to whomever we want and not be forced to disclose to everybody the amount of money received. Politics is based upon "greasing the wheel" -- it's an age-old American tradition. The constituents are entitled to depose anyone they deem corrupt, but the state cannot infringe upon the privacy of a state office holder. It's about time that somebody acknowledged this fact and protected our heritage and our civil liberties, and I'm glad it was the conservatives.

For starters, this post is pretty good evidence of MTAE's trollishness. Second, its the relative lack of corruption and bribery combined with our government's relative transparency that is part of what makes the US great. Third, it was part of the job that politicians reveal the amount of currency of gifts. No politician was forced to become a politician. Revealing information as a condition for getting the job in no way infringes on their negative liberties. Fourth, politicians most probable source of infringing on their privacy is the media. They love scandals of any nature. Sixth, "greasing the wheel" is an awful tradition.

Second, its the relative lack of corruption and bribery combined with our government's relative transparency that is part of what makes the US great.While I am pleased with the laws concerning transparency of income, I would like to know what the lack of corruption is relative to...

While I am pleased with the laws concerning transparency of income, I would like to know what the lack of corruption is relative to...

Relative to say Thailand or Malaysia. A friend of mine in Thailand has to bribe the local police because he is rich there and they know he can pay. If he doesn't pay they'll cause problems for him. Or compared to the US in the past. Ulysses S. Grant made most federal employees be chosen on merit rather than nepotism. The Progressive movement did the same on the state and local levels. That said nepotism isn't gone, but its less of a problem than it was.

Relative to say Thailand or Malaysia. A friend of mine in Thailand has to bribe the local police because he is rich there and they know he can pay. If he doesn't pay they'll cause problems for him. Or compared to the US in the past. Ulysses S. Grant made most federal employees be chosen on merit rather than nepotism. The Progressive movement did the same on the state and local levels. That said nepotism isn't gone, but its less of a problem than it was.Indeed, but wouldn't it be better to compare the US to other industrialized nations? It's a bit shabbier, by that standard.

Also, Grant is probably a bad example for showing that the US government hasn't been corrupt, considering all that went on during his tenure in office ;)

Indeed, but wouldn't it be better to compare the US to other industrialized nations? It's a bit shabbier, by that standard.

Also, Grant is probably a bad example for showing that the US government hasn't been corrupt, considering all that went on during his tenure in office ;)

Due to my lack of knowledge on the corruption level of other 1st world nations I can't compare. I never said the US government wasn't corrupt then or now, and I only used making the federal less nepotistic as the example, not Grant being a standard of purity. He was a shitty president.

Sure, it may be legal. But is it tax deductible?

Sure, it may be legal. But is it tax deductible?

Actually that made me think of something. As a gift it should count as income, I think, and legally should be taxed. Get the IRS on their asses.