Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Tom Rinaldo

(22,912 posts)
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 04:48 PM Mar 2016

Where is the Quid Pro Quo?

That is the standard challenge made, by those who accept huge campaign donations or speaking fees from corporate America and/or the donor class, to those who decry the corrupting influence of money in politics. That is what Hillary Clinton says when asked about her six figure speaking fees to Wall Street institutions. She claims her public record is transparent, that she represents only the voters, and there are no quid pro quos for the money she receives. In the legal sense I don't doubt her. This is from "The Legal Dictionary":

"For instance, an elected official might promise favorable governmental treatment to a person in exchange for something of value. This form of quid pro quo would be a violation of the law. On the federal level, the Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 1951 [1994]) makes it a felony for a public official to extort property under color of office. Trading campaign contributions for promises of official actions or inactions are also prohibited under the act."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Quid+pro+quo

It's all very specific, very concrete, very traceable in an evidentiary sense. There are some politicians who would attempt such an arrangement, but Hillary Clinton isn't one of them. I am very confident that personally she's not corrupt; which is not the same as saying though that she hasn't been corrupted by money – in the larger, not the legal, sense of that word. I know that Hillary Clinton denies this, I understand why she does. What she engages in politics, when she raises money for her campaigns, it is all perfectly normal, well within the letter of the law. The laws were written to allow that behavior, and then further expanded on by the Supreme Court in its Citizens United decision.

But I can find the quid pro quos even when they are legal. They are hiding in plain sight, and not confined to one politician or political party. Unspoken quid pro quos are why America's greatest financial institutions could crash the world economy and get fined billions for doing so without a single top executive going to jail. They are why the Trans-Pacific Partnership was swarmed over by industry representatives for years during its drafting, while our elected Representatives had to wait to make an appointment to read over it in a small windowless room without clearance to make copies. They are why Senators and Congressman have job security for life: Even when their constituents vote them out of office because there is always a corporate board or well paid lobbyist position awaiting them - if they were business friendly while in office. They are why both political parties spent most of the last few decades appealing to voters predominantly on the battleground of social issues, while our middle class spiraled into steep decline and became an endangered species.

Sarah Silverman, comedian extraordinaire, shared a brilliant insight when she was on “Real Time with Bill Maher” She likened money in politics with steroids in sports, and said she once accepted that in order to compete at the highest levels in the political sphere, politicians like Hillary Clinton had to use the steroids of big money in order to stay viable. And then Bernie Sanders refused to go along with the doping. That's why he has no transcripts to hide.

13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

nashville_brook

(20,958 posts)
3. demanding proof of QPQ is silly -- everyone knows it doesn't work that way
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 04:56 PM
Mar 2016

dirty pols, and institutional folks who need to create political cover jump up and down on "produce the quid pro quo!" they know that's not how the world works. just ask Rod Blagojevich. only the stupidest pols do business that way. not lifetime corporate lawyers.

Skwmom

(12,685 posts)
6. Sorry, but your post is gobbledygook.
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 05:12 PM
Mar 2016

It's called looking at a pattern of conduct.

I (or a family member, or related entity) get $$$$$ from you - then I do Y for you.

Or I do X for you - then I (or a family member, or related entity) get $$$$$ from you.

Surely, you can't say with a straight face that this does not exist? That there is just one coincidence after another, after another, after another....?

Another way of looking at it:

Why would the billionaire hedge fund loophole get closed but the billionaires get until 2017 to pay the deferred tax bill. Hmmm... the new President will be sworn in January 2017. Let me see, have any of those billionaires donated MILLIONS to super pacs? Oh my God! They have. What a coincidence!

You can look at piece after piece of legislation and ask:

1. Who wrote it?
2. Who did it benefit (not the American People)
3. Why in the heck would our elected officials votes for this crap?

It's called $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Common sense: Do you really think our government would be letting legislation that has proven so destructive to our county get passed if they weren't getting bought off?

It's not that our politicians are not corrupt. It's that our system is so damn corrupt that there is no one to hold people accountable!

And about this:politicians like Hillary Clinton had to use the steroids of big money in order to stay viable. And then Bernie Sanders refused to go along with the doping. That's why he has no transcripts. This is UTTER BULLSHIT! There is a big difference between campaign contributions and MILLIONS in "speaking and consulting" fees. And yes, there is a reason I put those words in quotes.


Tom Rinaldo

(22,912 posts)
8. This was a "generous" reading of politcs as usual
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 05:23 PM
Mar 2016

I focused on the systematic built in corruption rather than look at the individual decisions someone like Hillary made to charge huge speaking fees But I really don't think we disagree

Skwmom

(12,685 posts)
10. There is a lot of illegal corruption going on in DC which would be prosecuted if there was
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 05:35 PM
Mar 2016

anyone honest enough to do the job. Instead, they put on these little dog and pony shows now and then in an attempt to show they are doing something.

So I'd say we disagree.

Mufaddal

(1,021 posts)
7. This is a misunderstanding of the issue
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 05:14 PM
Mar 2016

First of all, we can point to examples of conflicts of interest that sure as hell look like QPQ, such as the arms deals from the Clinton State Dept following donations to the Clinton Foundation. Or her work while SOS as a saleswoman for Boeing as part of a "beneficial relationship." But let's leave that aside for a second.

The issue is not just that corporations and special interests are buying votes, it's that they are buying access. Money buys a whole lot of it.

At the end of the day, one can't credibly say, "Republicans are bought by special interests, but that money doesn't affect me."

BernieforPres2016

(3,017 posts)
9. There is no reason to make it complicated
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 05:30 PM
Mar 2016

You avoid all possible conflicts of interests. Judges must recuse themselves from cases where they have a significant conflict of interest. Sam Walton wouldn't let Wal-Mart buyers take as much as a free lunch from existing or potential suppliers. For Hillary to say that if you don't catch her on tape promising something in exchange for a campaign contribution that there's nothing wrong is disingenuous and treats voters as if they're stupid.

Tom Rinaldo

(22,912 posts)
11. Part of what prompted me to post this was Hilary's comment about Obama
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 07:02 PM
Mar 2016

Specifically how he took large amounts of money from Wall Street when he ran in 2008 and still signed Dodd-Franks. That was how she dismissed discussion of the corrupting influence of money in politics. The President can not recuse himself. Neither could Hillary really. The conflict is baked in.

BernieforPres2016

(3,017 posts)
12. I agree, Presidents and members of Congress can't recuse themselves
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 08:14 PM
Mar 2016

So you have to get rid of the conflicts of interest by banning special interest money and going to public financing of campaigns.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Where is the Quid Pro Quo...