• TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)@badatbeing.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    231
    ·
    7 months ago

    This is quid pro quo being ruled as NOT bribery because it comes to the person on the backside of the favor. This is almost certainly to do with the majority of the court recently being outed about the amount of high value bribes gifts/vacations they are getting from “friends”.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      This is almost certainly to do with the majority of the court recently being outed about the amount of high value bribes gifts/vacations they are getting from “friends”.

      Nah, this is a long running theme. In chronological order-

      Sun Diamond Growers - The government must prove the bribe is actually connected to the act.

      Skilling - Corruption charges require a second party to give you a bribe or kickback, self dealing is fine.

      Citizens United - Money is political speech, and you can spend as much as you want on an election.

      McDonnell - Acting as a pay to play gatekeeper is fine. Even if the government connects the bribe to the act.

      Ted Cruz - Politicians can keep unspent campaign funds as long as they maintain the fiction of having lent the campaign money.

      Snyder - Kickbacks aren’t actionable. <- We are here.

  • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    127
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    So that means that I can engage in a a little tax evasion, as a treat, right?

    On a serious note, from the article:

    the law makes it a very serious crime, punishable by up to 15 years in prison, for a federal official to accept a bribe

    Can we start actually enforcing this please?

    • Crikeste@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      51
      ·
      7 months ago

      Define bribe and you’ll start to see where enforcing this becomes a problem. Especially with legalized corruption in the form of lobbying and ‘gifts’.

      • feannag@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        42
        ·
        7 months ago

        Well, federal officials are already forbidden from accepting gifts/anything valued more than $25 in one instance, and no more than $100 a year from any one group or person. Enforcing that seems like a good place to start.

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      7 months ago

      Legislators, executives, and jurists aren’t officials in the sense you mean. They are referring to government employees, who can still receive every joyful punishment a prosecutor can dream of.

      • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        7 months ago

        Well, perhaps the wording should be amended to encompass all public employees. But that would require the law be rewritten by the people that benefit from it, so, yeah.

  • OldChicoAle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    96
    ·
    7 months ago

    So is the difference “I’ll give you money to do this thing” versus “I’ll give you money if you do this thing”?

    They both sound like bribes to me. Money, goods, or services are just handed over at different times.

    I fucking hate these people. No shame. No morals. No humanity.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      SCOTUS has routinely bent over backwards to protect politicians from corruption and bribery charges though so the message is clear. You cannot charge a politician with bribery except in extreme circumstances. Like them being a democrat.

    • Snapz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      7 months ago

      “At every level” she’s making specific reference to a specific certain level in the US judicial system here… Some pretty good, brave activism three - good luck getting your mom a house from a billionaire now Justice Jackson

      • I_Clean_Here@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        Your comment is nonsensical. Format that shit. And wtf, are you saying Judge Jackson is corrupt as well? You are making no sense.

        • TimmyDeanSausage @lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          7 months ago

          Their formatting was dog dukey, but I was still able to parse what they were saying fairly easily. They’re saying “good job judge Jackson. Too bad you won’t be able to get a free house from insert evil billionaire here (/s)”. While I agree with your sentiment, the way you go about pointing these things out can backfire, if done with a rude tone, such as the way you chose to do it. There you go; an unsolicited constructive criticism for an unsolicited constructive criticism. :)

  • pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    7 months ago

    i love how the standard went from “the appearance of impropriety” to “you know what, just leave the money on the counter”.

    • Snapz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      7 months ago

      NOT THAT COUNTER!!! That is the bribe counter! You put it NEXT the bribe counter so nobody gets the wrong idea.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        No that’s fine too, we’ll just blow up the journalist and bury the story. #PanamaPapers

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        7 months ago

        Then they at the end they give that know an extra twist by specifically mentioning two justices notorious for receiving substantial bribes rewards who didn’t feel the need to recuse themselves.

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    7 months ago

    I didn’t think they could weaken it any further, you already had to get caught on tape exchanging money, laughing maniacally, and saying, “This is a bribe for X action.”

    Now you can do that, as long as it happens after the politician delivers. That’s a kickback. It’s the fucking definition of a kickback. They gave someone a contract and the contractor then gave the contract giver a large sum of money.

  • Chaotic Entropy@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Politicians can legally be bribed after the fact now. Phew, what a relief.

    I guess step two is to decide exactly how many hours a bribe needs to be given, before doing someone a favour, for it to just be considered a gift.

        • bss03@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Vocabulary question X + shell + powder = bullet, what is X?

          Because usually the threat is that X will be delivered through use of powder the destination of the shell is ambiguous but not included in the delivery.

          When you deliver while (unfired) bullets it’s generally not considered a threat.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            That very much depends on how the unfired bullet(s) is/are delivered. Did we leave a bullet on the lieutenant’s pillow or did we give the politician a box of the latest match grade hunting rounds with a bow on it?

  • 31337@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    7 months ago

    If they ever flip back to a Democrat majority, it’s going to take decades to undo all the damage this court has done (and they’ll still have the incentive to not undo stuff like this).

    • anon_8675309@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      7 months ago

      Longer than that. Democrats are pretty centrist these days, so some of this will linger on for long long time.

      • jorp@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        Joe Biden nearly got 1 food truck in to gaza from the 300 million dollar pier and one of Israel’s bomb shipments was 10 minutes late thanks to him though. That’s bringing the left and liberals together.

  • barkingspiders@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    7 months ago

    seems like a good thread to plug https://represent.us

    they describe themselves as

    RepresentUs is America’s leading nonpartisan anti-corruption organization fighting to fix our broken and ineffective government. We unite people across the political spectrum to pass laws that hold corrupt politicians accountable, defeat special interests, and force the government to meet the needs of the American people.

    here’s their policy platform https://represent.us/policy-platform/

    they claim to have played a part in over 185 pieces of legislation (mostly at the state level) that contributed to their core platform https://represent.us/our-wins/

    here are their ongoing campaigns presented state by state https://represent.us/2024-campaigns/

    nobody and no organization are perfect but I feel like most people can find something to agree on here