Transparent government doesn't help

[laughing dog]

No, they did not. They said it was unlikely.

You can mandate the governments actions be transparent but bribes are by their nature covert. Disclosure laws aren't going to make them show up.

Depends on the nature of the law.

How would you write a law that actually made bribes public?

Public disclosure of finances. Or simply empower bribers to film the bribe, then post them and give the bribers immunity.

People hide money from taxes. Think they can't hide bribes??

There is no perfect solution. I noticed you did not address " Or simply empower bribers to film the bribe, then post them and give the bribers immunity." But, once again, you are shifting the goalposts to hide the fact your OP is not accurate.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, they did not. They said it was unlikely.

You can mandate the governments actions be transparent but bribes are by their nature covert. Disclosure laws aren't going to make them show up.

Depends on the nature of the law.

How would you write a law that actually made bribes public?

Public disclosure of finances. Or simply empower bribers to film the bribe, then post them and give the bribers immunity.

People hide money from taxes. Think they can't hide bribes??

There is no perfect solution. I noticed you did not address " Or simply empower bribers to film the bribe, then post them and give the bribers immunity." But, once again, you are shifting the goalposts to hide the fact your OP is not accurate.

Which would mean nobody would ever take a bribe from you again.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

The primary question is: would you rather the public know about corruption, or would you rather that corruption happens behind closed doors? Transparency is the only way we can get anything done about corruption in the first place.

 

[barbos]

The primary question is: would you rather the public know about corruption, or would you rather that corruption happens behind closed doors? Transparency is the only way we can get anything done about corruption in the first place.

The question is, how to achieve said transparency?

 

[Jayjay]

No, they did not. They said it was unlikely.

You can mandate the governments actions be transparent but bribes are by their nature covert. Disclosure laws aren't going to make them show up.

Depends on the nature of the law.

How would you write a law that actually made bribes public?

Public disclosure of finances. Or simply empower bribers to film the bribe, then post them and give the bribers immunity.

People hide money from taxes. Think they can't hide bribes??

There is no perfect solution. I noticed you did not address " Or simply empower bribers to film the bribe, then post them and give the bribers immunity." But, once again, you are shifting the goalposts to hide the fact your OP is not accurate.

How does one "empower bribers to film the bribe". Is there a law that says that whenever taking a bribe, you must film it? Or does it just mean that you give immunity to whistleblowers, so bribers are more likely to record the transaction so that they can not only bribe, but also blackmail the leaders? I don't see how that would reduce corruption, in fact it might increase it.

 

[Jaecp]

Oregon has a pretty good system in place

https://secure.sos.state.or.us/orestar/gotoPublicTransactionSearch.do

You can basically give whatever you want to campaigns, but everyone gets to know who gave what to you

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The primary question is: would you rather the public know about corruption, or would you rather that corruption happens behind closed doors? Transparency is the only way we can get anything done about corruption in the first place.

The thing is the transparency doesn't show the dirty deeds.

 

[ZiprHead]

The primary question is: would you rather the public know about corruption, or would you rather that corruption happens behind closed doors? Transparency is the only way we can get anything done about corruption in the first place.

The thing is the transparency doesn't show the dirty deeds.

Non-sequitur. If it's not transparent, then the word transparency doesn't apply.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The thing is the transparency doesn't show the dirty deeds.

Non-sequitur. If it's not transparent, then the word transparency doesn't apply.

The issue isn't quibbling over words, the issue is what happens in the real world.

 

[laughing dog]

No, they did not. They said it was unlikely.

You can mandate the governments actions be transparent but bribes are by their nature covert. Disclosure laws aren't going to make them show up.

Depends on the nature of the law.

How would you write a law that actually made bribes public?

Public disclosure of finances. Or simply empower bribers to film the bribe, then post them and give the bribers immunity.

People hide money from taxes. Think they can't hide bribes??

There is no perfect solution. I noticed you did not address " Or simply empower bribers to film the bribe, then post them and give the bribers immunity." But, once again, you are shifting the goalposts to hide the fact your OP is not accurate.

Which would mean nobody would ever take a bribe from you again.

How many times do you hit your head against the wall before you come up with such stupid non-sequiturs?

 

[untermensche]

People hide money from taxes. Think they can't hide bribes??

Bribery is only a problem if the process is not transparent.

If every member of the legislature must first explain why they think some law is necessary and who exactly wants it then any bribery is made clear.

But they get away with introducing some law under their own name and never really have to explain why they want it. All they have to do is get the votes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, they did not. They said it was unlikely.

You can mandate the governments actions be transparent but bribes are by their nature covert. Disclosure laws aren't going to make them show up.

Depends on the nature of the law.

How would you write a law that actually made bribes public?

Public disclosure of finances. Or simply empower bribers to film the bribe, then post them and give the bribers immunity.

People hide money from taxes. Think they can't hide bribes??

There is no perfect solution. I noticed you did not address " Or simply empower bribers to film the bribe, then post them and give the bribers immunity." But, once again, you are shifting the goalposts to hide the fact your OP is not accurate.

Which would mean nobody would ever take a bribe from you again.

How many times do you hit your head against the wall before you come up with such stupid non-sequiturs?

Where's the non-sequitur?

The point of giving a bribe is to get something you weren't supposed to get. If you then turn around and turn in the person you bribed nobody is going to trust you, you aren't going to be able to bribe anyone else. Obviously you felt that bribing someone was the right thing to do before, now you will no longer have that option.

- - - Updated - - -

People hide money from taxes. Think they can't hide bribes??

Bribery is only a problem if the process is not transparent.

If every member of the legislature must first explain why they think some law is necessary and who exactly wants it then any bribery is made clear.

But they get away with introducing some law under their own name and never really have to explain why they want it. All they have to do is get the votes.

You have some lie detector you can apply to their explanation?

 

[untermensche]

Bribery is only a problem if the process is not transparent.

If every member of the legislature must first explain why they think some law is necessary and who exactly wants it then any bribery is made clear.

But they get away with introducing some law under their own name and never really have to explain why they want it. All they have to do is get the votes.

You have some lie detector you can apply to their explanation?

Why do you somehow need one?

If they claim the law is wanted by X all we have to do is ask X.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You have some lie detector you can apply to their explanation?

Why do you somehow need one?

If they claim the law is wanted by X all we have to do is ask X.

Of course there's some X that wants the law. The question is whether they're actually using their judgment on the situation or listening to the bribe they got.

 

[untermensche]

Why do you somehow need one?

If they claim the law is wanted by X all we have to do is ask X.

Of course there's some X that wants the law. The question is whether they're actually using their judgment on the situation or listening to the bribe they got.

They can try to sell it as a law to help X.

But they had better have good reasons besides helping X.

When we can see where laws originate we can see who the legislators are serving.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course there's some X that wants the law. The question is whether they're actually using their judgment on the situation or listening to the bribe they got.

They can try to sell it as a law to help X.

But they had better have good reasons besides helping X.

When we can see where laws originate we can see who the legislators are serving.

We usually know who wants a law anyway, you're not exposing much. The issue is why the legislator supports/opposes the measure--and short of telepathy it's pretty hard to make that transparent.

 

[untermensche]

They can try to sell it as a law to help X.

But they had better have good reasons besides helping X.

When we can see where laws originate we can see who the legislators are serving.

We usually know who wants a law anyway, you're not exposing much. The issue is why the legislator supports/opposes the measure--and short of telepathy it's pretty hard to make that transparent.

No we don't.

We usually don't have a clue where legislation comes from.

We don't know who is asking for it or being served by it.

That is what the bribe gets you.

The legislation you want without your fingerprints on it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We usually know who wants a law anyway, you're not exposing much. The issue is why the legislator supports/opposes the measure--and short of telepathy it's pretty hard to make that transparent.

No we don't.

We usually don't have a clue where legislation comes from.

We don't know who is asking for it or being served by it.

That is what the bribe gets you.

The legislation you want without your fingerprints on it.

It's generally obvious who stands to benefit.

The question is whether it's the appropriate balance of conflicting positions.

 

[untermensche]

No we don't.

We usually don't have a clue where legislation comes from.

We don't know who is asking for it or being served by it.

That is what the bribe gets you.

The legislation you want without your fingerprints on it.

It's generally obvious who stands to benefit.

The question is whether it's the appropriate balance of conflicting positions.

All a Republican has to do is claim some law helps the economy, helps the business owner, and other Republicans will vote for it without even reading it.

The problem is not the bribe.

It is the ability to easily hide it in a corrupt legislative system where we have no idea where laws come from.

The huge Patriot Act appears instantly after 911.

Not one hearing or witness, just like the current Republican nonsense with health care.

When some law can be introduced and there are not a huge list of names endorsing it, asking for it, and open hearings discussing it, that is a corrupt system.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's generally obvious who stands to benefit.

The question is whether it's the appropriate balance of conflicting positions.

All a Republican has to do is claim some law helps the economy, helps the business owner, and other Republicans will vote for it without even reading it.

The problem is not the bribe.

It is the ability to easily hide it in a corrupt legislative system where we have no idea where laws come from.

In most cases it's pretty obvious. You're focusing on the wrong part of the problem.

The huge Patriot Act appears instantly after 911.

Yeah, it was a law enforcement dream list that got pushed through because almost nobody dared vote against it.

When some law can be introduced and there are not a huge list of names endorsing it, asking for it, and open hearings discussing it, that is a corrupt system.

Disagree--most bills don't have a huge list of names behind them.