So, if I contributed $30,000 to a political party and as a result received $500,000 in government subsidies for my (already profitable) business, would anyone have a problem with that?
I ask because as posted, the question is a bit vague. For example,
1. Did you contribute simply because you support the general ideology of the party and believe that ideology is more aligned with American principles than that of any other party?
2. Were the subsidies a direct and planned reward for having contributed to the party (quid pro quo), or merely something the party politicians saw as a necessary move that benefited you collaterally?
Another point that has always been in the back of my mind on such things is that I don't know that there is anyone who doesn't expect something in return for their support of a party or candidate, either directly or indirectly. Even if the only reason is as in question 1, and one simply believes one party is more a reflection of the founder's intentions, there is a benefit one enjoys as a result. That benefit may indeed manifest monetarily in some way, such as in greater profits due to fewer government regulations. Thus, as posted, I would not have a problem "per se" or theoretically.
I admit to being a bit intentionally vague, but let’s assume that I have a history of receiving subsidies from one particular political party, and my donations are intended hopefully to further that historical connection.
Again, is yours the only company receiving these subsidies? That could certainly be construed as a quid pro quo bribery, and I would like to see the politicians in question be seriously scrutinized for ethics violations at the very least. At tge same time I have no idea why the subsidies are granted and if there could be some legitimate reason that justifies them.
Again, we all support parties and candidates with expectations firmly attached, regardless of whether or not we are personally or directly benefiting.
Here's a more distinct example of where I would object to such an arrangement: A politician or party promotes themselves in a manner that is clearly in opposition to the agenda of the entity that donated money, and as a result of that donation begins to grant subsidies to support what they were on record opposing during the campaign leading to their coming into power. That's clearly a problem.
But if the politician/party was already well known for its support of that entity's agenda, I don't necessarily see a problem. It would be hard to establish a true quid pro quo connection between donation and subsidy.
Let’s say that my company might not be the only company receiving this government handout, but that my company is the most well known and gets significantly more than any other similar companies might get.
Maybe this is one you deleted accidentally. My original response was that the size of either the donation or the subsidy doesn't matter. As regards the former, I don't agree that limits on donations should be enacted. If I believe that a candidate or party is doing good work, will benefit the nation, I want to be able to have the ability to do the most I feel appropriate to support them. I think everybody does and the only people who object are those with limited resources. In that case they need to make better arguments and supply good evidence to that end. But those that have the resources should be free to donate whatever they feel compelled to donate.
On the subsidy side, I generally don't agree with gov't subsidies for anything in the private sector. So the amount doesn't matter there, either. I am open to listening to justifications, but on the whole, I prefer gov't stay out of the private sector as much as possible. This would also avoid any possibility of bribery.
I'm wondering where you're going with this question.
Where I’m going is that there seems to be a conflict of interest. I’m also going down the subsidies for profitable entities, who donate to the party that will give out continued subsidies is unseemly at best.
Again, I regard one side as a problem, but the other side as acceptable. The subsidy side I oppose for reasons stated, with the caveat that perhaps there might be justification case-by-case-wise. But for the donator, there are none that do not expect something in return...something that will benefit the donor, even if not directly.
I fee the same way about lobbyists. It's not that they may try to "persuade" a politician with some remuneration. It's how the politician responds that's important. We are all lobbyists every time we appeal to, or "lobby" for something from gov't. We may only pay with our votes, but it's then just a matter of degrees.
So those who donate are free to donate all they want for whatever reason they have in mind. If that reason is harmful or damaging in any way, it is up to the politician or party to discriminate and reject that which does not conform with their duty to serve the general public.
I saw something this morning that raised a related question regarding donations.
As we know about $500,000 dollars (maybe more) has been raised for Dr Ford through GoFundMe donations.
1. Isn’t this paying her for her testimony? 2. Does getting paid for testifying help or hurt credibility? (Clearly I’m differentiating between an expert witness and someone making an accusation.) 3. If this/these accounts are being funded covertly by people like Soros, or by the democrats themselves, does that raise ethical issues. 4. Is it possible to set one up to financially support a candidate for public office?
I’m not necessarily suggesting specific impropriety in this case, but it seems like wealthy partisans could use this as a loophole to encourage people to make false accusations about those they oppose.
I’ve never donated to one of these, and I have no idea if it’s possible to donate anonymously or under a false name, but it’s certainly possible for someone like Soros to pass out buckets of cash to people and tell them to donate.
Again, I’m not making claims or accusations about anyone specifically, it just seems like this is a loophole that should be looked at.
12 comments:
Could you be more specific?
I ask because as posted, the question is a bit vague. For example,
1. Did you contribute simply because you support the general ideology of the party and believe that ideology is more aligned with American principles than that of any other party?
2. Were the subsidies a direct and planned reward for having contributed to the party (quid pro quo), or merely something the party politicians saw as a necessary move that benefited you collaterally?
Another point that has always been in the back of my mind on such things is that I don't know that there is anyone who doesn't expect something in return for their support of a party or candidate, either directly or indirectly. Even if the only reason is as in question 1, and one simply believes one party is more a reflection of the founder's intentions, there is a benefit one enjoys as a result. That benefit may indeed manifest monetarily in some way, such as in greater profits due to fewer government regulations. Thus, as posted, I would not have a problem "per se" or theoretically.
I admit to being a bit intentionally vague, but let’s assume that I have a history of receiving subsidies from one particular political party, and my donations are intended hopefully to further that historical connection.
Again, is yours the only company receiving these subsidies? That could certainly be construed as a quid pro quo bribery, and I would like to see the politicians in question be seriously scrutinized for ethics violations at the very least. At tge same time I have no idea why the subsidies are granted and if there could be some legitimate reason that justifies them.
Again, we all support parties and candidates with expectations firmly attached, regardless of whether or not we are personally or directly benefiting.
Here's a more distinct example of where I would object to such an arrangement: A politician or party promotes themselves in a manner that is clearly in opposition to the agenda of the entity that donated money, and as a result of that donation begins to grant subsidies to support what they were on record opposing during the campaign leading to their coming into power. That's clearly a problem.
But if the politician/party was already well known for its support of that entity's agenda, I don't necessarily see a problem. It would be hard to establish a true quid pro quo connection between donation and subsidy.
Let’s say that my company might not be the only company receiving this government handout, but that my company is the most well known and gets significantly more than any other similar companies might get.
I’m not suggesting a quid pro quo necessarily.
Then I'm not seeing a problem, though I could see some assuming impropriety .
Would it make any difference if the numbers were larger?
Maybe this is one you deleted accidentally. My original response was that the size of either the donation or the subsidy doesn't matter. As regards the former, I don't agree that limits on donations should be enacted. If I believe that a candidate or party is doing good work, will benefit the nation, I want to be able to have the ability to do the most I feel appropriate to support them. I think everybody does and the only people who object are those with limited resources. In that case they need to make better arguments and supply good evidence to that end. But those that have the resources should be free to donate whatever they feel compelled to donate.
On the subsidy side, I generally don't agree with gov't subsidies for anything in the private sector. So the amount doesn't matter there, either. I am open to listening to justifications, but on the whole, I prefer gov't stay out of the private sector as much as possible. This would also avoid any possibility of bribery.
I'm wondering where you're going with this question.
Where I’m going is that there seems to be a conflict of interest. I’m also going down the subsidies for profitable entities, who donate to the party that will give out continued subsidies is unseemly at best.
Do you have anyone specific in mind?
Again, I regard one side as a problem, but the other side as acceptable. The subsidy side I oppose for reasons stated, with the caveat that perhaps there might be justification case-by-case-wise. But for the donator, there are none that do not expect something in return...something that will benefit the donor, even if not directly.
I fee the same way about lobbyists. It's not that they may try to "persuade" a politician with some remuneration. It's how the politician responds that's important. We are all lobbyists every time we appeal to, or "lobby" for something from gov't. We may only pay with our votes, but it's then just a matter of degrees.
So those who donate are free to donate all they want for whatever reason they have in mind. If that reason is harmful or damaging in any way, it is up to the politician or party to discriminate and reject that which does not conform with their duty to serve the general public.
I do have something specific in mind.
I saw something this morning that raised a related question regarding donations.
As we know about $500,000 dollars (maybe more) has been raised for Dr Ford through GoFundMe donations.
1. Isn’t this paying her for her testimony?
2. Does getting paid for testifying help or hurt credibility? (Clearly I’m differentiating between an expert witness and someone making an accusation.)
3. If this/these accounts are being funded covertly by people like Soros, or by the democrats themselves, does that raise ethical issues.
4. Is it possible to set one up to financially support a candidate for public office?
I’m not necessarily suggesting specific impropriety in this case, but it seems like wealthy partisans could use this as a loophole to encourage people to make false accusations about those they oppose.
I’ve never donated to one of these, and I have no idea if it’s possible to donate anonymously or under a false name, but it’s certainly possible for someone like Soros to pass out buckets of cash to people and tell them to donate.
Again, I’m not making claims or accusations about anyone specifically, it just seems like this is a loophole that should be looked at.
I just saw something that indicates a total of five go fund me accounts for an approximate total of $900,000.
Post a Comment