Isn't this illegal?

[draggar]

If I am a public official and take money from companies affected by my decisions to help sway my decisions - that is called bridery, right? I would go to jail, right?

So why is it when a company gives money to someone running for congress, (and it's obvious the company does this to help promote theiragendas), it's called a campaign contribution?

Even in the bribery case - if my mind is made up on company A and then company A offers me money, it's still a bribe.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

It's a "grey" area with a subtle difference. Not that I agree with the difference, but it is there.

If I give you money when you are in office and you pocket that money it is bribery.

If I give you money for a campaign contribution, then you are (supposedly) putting that money into the campaign process and NOT pocketing it.

It's as I said, a subtle difference and one I'm not too happy about.

[infinitemonkies]

The entire lobbying industry is set up on bribery, as for that matter is congress.

Here's a very common example which is technically not illegal, but should be:
Dear Mr. Congressman, my company would like the opportunity to demonstrate that our product is not harmful. We are holding a conference in Hawaii, and would like to offer you and your family free first class tickets to the islands, where you will stay for a week in a 5 star hotel. The conference will take place thursday afternoon from 5pm to 5:02pm. Attendance is not mandatory.

[Red Panda]

Its kind of sucky, but on the other hand many politicans wouldn't be able to run without that money

[Greenday]

Its kind of sucky, but on the other hand many politicans wouldn't be able to run without that money

You mean they'd have to run on the basis of popularity instead? The horror!

[Rapscallion]

You mean they'd have to run on the basis of popularity instead? The horror!

Even worse, they might have to rely on how good their arguments are!

Rapscallion

[Wingates_Hellsing]

You mean they'd have to run on the basis of popularity instead? The horror!

Yeah, the horror as in only rich people will win. The grand majority of people won't have any idea who you are if you don't get some coverage leading up to the election, much less have any idea what you intend to do.

It is very important that the available candidates let the public know what their beliefs are in addition to who they are, the alternative is either even more people voting based solely on party or worse, popularity, which has even less to do with competence. Or, if one candidate has gobs of money the other doesn't, people will just vote from the one person they vote for and that's it.

Campaign contributions are technically given to the candidate the entity prefers not by a company the candidate prefers in the same way as individual donations. It's an instance of an entity (made up of people) choosing who they will support whereas a bribe is an entity paying an official to not do their job. Big difference there.

EDIT:

Even worse, they might have to rely on how good their arguments are!

And without money to get TV time, internet ads, a site, or anything of that nature, where the fuck do they go to have their opinions heard? Modern technology allows people to communicate with a vast number of others and that's the best possible thing for politics. It's just that modern technology ain't cheap.

[Rapscallion]

And without money to get TV time, internet ads, a site, or anything of that nature, where the fuck do they go to have their opinions heard? Modern technology allows people to communicate with a vast number of others and that's the best possible thing for politics. It's just that modern technology ain't cheap.

The alternative would be many politicians of ... their own views instead of toeing the party line. Sounds like it would be chaos.

I'd be willing to risk it for a few years to see how it goes.

Rapscallion

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Maybe it's just the elections around me, but those politicians that run for office around here talk about their beliefs specifically, it's only to be expected that they joined their party for a reason. Nevertheless, they would still have to be heard, which takes money.

[HYHYBT]

The definition of bribery is not, as implied by the initial post, limited to companies. Individuals who give money to a politician for the same reason are equally guilty. So if campaign contributions are equivalent to bribery, then they are regardless of the source; which would mean nobody could legally raise funds to run for office. Everybody would have to do so only on their own money. Which means only those able to afford to buy TV time, etc every couple of years *on their own* would ever have a chance at getting elected, regardless of their positions.

[daleduke17]

There should be strict spending caps on campaigning, that way the field is levelled. $100,000 dollars per campaign. Running for President? You can spend up to $100,000 dollars from your initial "I'm running" until the final November general election.

That may even stop people like Obama from starting his campaign two or three years in advance.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

$100.000 is spit in a bucket. How about just, 'spent money by either side must be equal?'

[daleduke17]

$100.000 is spit in a bucket. How about just, 'spent money by either side must be equal?'

Nope. $100,000 limit ensures that almost any person in the country from the highest CEO to most blue collar workers could credibly run for President.

[Hobbs]

That may even stop people like Obama from starting his campaign two or three years in advance.

I don't remember seeing his campaign until the year prior to the election. Three years would have meant he'd practically started after Bush got re-elected.

[HYHYBT]

No, it ensures that NOBODY would be able to get any significant amount of notice without heavy backing by the media. "News" coverage, after all, is free.