Can a politician take big money and still be their own person?

Parados,

How do you feel about drug companies giving money, and trips, and expensive dinners, to doctors?

There is the possibility that these drug companies are doing this for doctors that would have prescribed these drugs anyway. Does this make you feel any more comfortable with the practice?

Wasn't there a study about this issue some years ago? There were some negativity involved - as I vaguely recall.

I'm very negative on it, and we were pushed by various companies when I worked in medicine and in architecture. I got quite pissy in a short time, and didn't eat the provided lunch. I have my own, thank you, still sitting at the table for the sales talk. Easy to do, as they made appointments.

On the other hand, a pal married a sales guy..


I do remember becoming sort of friends with a person who owned a company making then relatively new drip irrigation systems. I don't remember him pushing lunch. He came to our then 9 architect studio to give us information, period. I specified his system in detail for a couple of large many-condo projects.
We got to be mild friends after my calling re varied questions over time.

Me too Osso,

I am using this example to explain the general discomfort about politicians receiving so much money from Wall Street. This is a legitimate issue when it comes to Hillary's candidacy.

Of course it doesn't mean that they are intentionally or even consciously corrupt. But there is no question that tens of millions of dollars will have some influence on the recipient even if they don't want it to.

The people handing out this money understand that.

If it didn't have any effect, money would have stopped long ago.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-wall-street-killed-financial-reform-20120510

Well Max you sure can't say that about Bernie. He continues to tell people what they want to hear even though he knows its a bunch of lying bull shyt. A republican congress will make sure none of his programs have a snowballs chance in hell. If there is a hell.

It is illegal for companies to give money, trips or expensive dinners to sitting Senators, Congressmen or their staff. It is illegal for Senators, Congressmen or their staffs to accept such items.

True.

Not to mention that some really interesting people with creds up the wazoo couldn't opt to run for office, much less for president. Money is always the ribbon.

It's illegal to spit on the sidewalk in some counties in Texas.

er, that meant I designed the irrigation of that entire place, and of course accounted for it.

how about lunches?

There were no spitting signs in NYC when tuberculosis was rampant in the early 20th century. A county shouldn't maintain a standard of civil behavior that is subscribed to by the majority? Is spitting (or blowing one's nose with a finger pressing against the other nostril) a new human right?

Are there signs in those counties giving fair warning ("No Spitting on Sidewalk"), or is this the saliva version of a speed trap?

Relax, hero. I just meant that people flout laws all the time.

And of course Bernie dosent have any weaknesses. Except for the fact he is jewish, socialist communist. Of course this wont affect the vote on him presently, but wait for the republican brainwashing machine to get into gear. They have already done all the damage they can to Hillary and changed enough liberal minds to get Bernie into the race.

"Socialist-communist?"

Yeah, that's worse than either one.

Did you vote for Obama in 2008, Rabel?

Theoretically it's possible, but highly unlikely.

The money given to candidates with names other than Clinton are not usually part of a blatant quid pro quo, but as a means to create a favorable impression in the mind of the candidate.

I entertain prospective and existing clients all of the time and it's not an effort to get them to buy services they do not need or which I cannot competently provide. It is to associate my name and the name of my company with a positive experience, and, quite frankly, to obtain a slight edge in terms of their feeling beholden.

I don't expect that these gratuities will cause them to make decisions regarding my firm that are not, overall, in the best interests of their company or themselves, but I hope that they will contribute towards them giving us the benefit of the doubt or an advantage in a situation where everything else is equal. None of the gratuities are so lavish that they can't help but be questioned, but if someone is willing to sell their soul for a nice dinner, a bottle of fine whisky, or tickets to a sporting event, then I don't feel that I can be blamed as a great corrupter of men and women.

There is a difference between bribery and greasing the skids.

The reality is that in the world of politics (particularly on the national stage), the cost of greasing the skids is outlandish. It's a matter or scope.

It would take a very long time of not seeing any results what-so-ever for me to stop entertaining a given party and this has never happened. I'm not an idiot though. If someone who had accepted a gratuity from me ever did something that was directly against the interests of my firm, it would be the last one they were offered, and I suspect the same is true for political donors. Most are paying for access, not a specific favor. Not everyone gets the opportunity to make their case directly to a powerful politician and it's worth money for that chance.

Having said this, I find charging for access to be a violation of an elected official's ethics. I shouldn't have to spend money to get my congressman to listen to me.

Obviously some politicians take money in return for specific promised actions and that is criminal as well as unethical, but the others who are allowing their skids to be greased cannot say with any validity that they are unaffected in anyway by the grease. The effect may be too subtle for them to notice, but it's there. If this wasn't the case the practice would not have endured for thousands of years.