Support NeoGAF

[Autumn Wind]

Politicians should use social media to discuss policy only. Please don't tweet to me what you're eating or drinking this evening or what you're watching on TV.

In the meantime, have as much steak (if she likes steak) and mixed drinks as you want and enjoy the NFL season.

 

[JABEE]

But...why? There hasn't been any sign of impropriety, no matter how hard this article wants us to walk away thinking there has been.

She has been involved in senior issues for most of her political career. She knows and care about them. I want her on that committee.

Are you cool with Trump continuing to manage his business holdings while President as long as no one investigates his and uncovers he used his power to commit a crime?

Was Dick Cheney cool, because no one caught him?

I feel like I have an issue with the appearance of impropriety as well, because we can all pretend that corruption doesn't exist or public interests will uncover all misdeeds, but I feel there should be a higher standard for politicians.

Maybe it's about being from NJ where I have seen half the Governors and Senators from my state be arrested after their time in office. It's one of those things where I feel with politicians, where there is smoke there is fire, and the standard for criticizing someone with that much cover and connections with the government is much lower.

The Senate is called the Millionaire's club for a reason, and I don't think it represents what democracy should be about, and I would include individual senators like Sanders in that group. People are too easy on these people in the name of political unity behind their individual team.

 

[JABEE]

It would absolutely be unconstitutional to disallow the wealthy to hold public office. Taking away the right of someone to hold public office because of how rich they are is NOT protecting the people, it's stripping them of rights.

Also, would their family have to adhere to this? Would their spouse have to quit their job?

I think it works the same way as other workplace roles. You shouldn't be banned from being a Senator because you are a millionaire, but we should recognize the problem and perception of needing to be rich to stand a chance at winning a Senate seat.

 

[Isaac Otherworld]

Eat the rich.

 

[JettDash]

Are you cool with Trump continuing to manage his business holdings while President as long as no one investigates his and uncovers he used his power to commit a crime?

Was Dick Cheney cool, because no one caught him?

I feel like I have an issue with the appearance of impropriety as well, because we can all pretend that corruption doesn't exist or public interests will uncover all misdeeds, but I feel there should be a higher standard for politicians.

Maybe it's about being from NJ where I have seen half the Governors and Senators from my state be arrested after their time in office. It's one of those things where I feel with politicians, where there is smoke there is fire, and the standard for criticizing someone with that much cover and connections with the government is much lower.

The Senate is called the Millionaire's club for a reason, and I don't think it represents what democracy should be about, and I would include individual senators like Sanders in that group. People are too easy on these people in the name of political unity behind their individual team.

How does a vacation property owned by her husband and his friend give the appearance of impropriety? What the fuck does it have to do with her office of US Senator?

And the net worth of a Senator is irrelevant to me. I wouldn't give a shit if every Democratic Senator was a billionaire as long as they delivered policy objectives I favored.

I think it works the same way as other workplace roles. You shouldn't be banned from being a Senator because you are a millionaire, but we should recognize the problem and perception of needing to be rich to stand a chance at winning a Senate seat.

I dunno if there is that perception. But those that want to run for a Senate seat tend to be ambitious and successful people.

 

[Matt]

Are you cool with Trump continuing to manage his business holdings while President as long as no one investigates his and uncovers he used his power to commit a crime?

Was Dick Cheney cool, because no one caught him?

I feel like I have an issue with the appearance of impropriety as well, because we can all pretend that corruption doesn't exist or public interests will uncover all misdeeds, but I feel there should be a higher standard for politicians.

Maybe it's about being from NJ where I have seen half the Governors and Senators from my state be arrested after their time in office. It's one of those things where I feel with politicians, where there is smoke there is fire, and the standard for criticizing someone with that much cover and connections with the government is much lower.

The Senate is called the Millionaire's club for a reason, and I don't think it represents what democracy should be about, and I would include individual senators like Sanders in that group. People are too easy on these people in the name of political unity behind their individual team.

I'm against accusing people of crimes or impropriety without any evidence. I'd be saying that (and have said that) no matter what political party is involved.

 

[Matt]

I think it works the same way as other workplace roles. You shouldn't be banned from being a Senator because you are a millionaire, but we should recognize the problem and perception of needing to be rich to stand a chance at winning a Senate seat.

The issue is less you need to be rich to win than you need to be rich to run. And I agree that's a problem and we could do a lot to address that. Frankly I think a good step would be allowing candidates to be paid from their funds while running, and raising the salary of members of Congress. That would do A LOT to widen the field of people that could or would run.

 

[JABEE]

How does a vacation property owned by her husband and his friend give the appearance of impropriety? What the fuck does it have to do with her office of US Senator?

And the net worth of a Senator is irrelevant to me. I wouldn't give a shit if every Democratic Senator was a billionaire as long as they delivered policy objectives I favored.



I dunno if there is that perception. But those that want to run for a Senate seat tend to be ambitious and successful people.

Because the person who shares her vacation home and donates as much as legally possible to her campaign just settled a Medicare fraud case? McCaskill is on the finance committee responsible for handling Medicare and Medicaid funding.

I think people are just generally tired of not being able to trust their public leaders to do the right thing without needing a special investigation to uncover wrong-doings. My experience growing up and watching so many political leaders regardless of party parade around their lack of ethics, closing bridges, patron jobs, misallocation of money, general scandal leaves me as a person who is tired of pretending like politicians are normal people who cannot exert influence and power to get away with far more shit than everyone else.

The issue is less you need to be rich to win than you need to be rich to run. And I agree that's a problem and we could do a lot to address that. Frankly I think a good step would be allowing candidates to be paid from their funds while running, and raising the salary of members of Congress. That would do A LOT to widen the field of people that could or would run.

You are right, but I think the fact that political positions regulate markets makes me question whether you should operate a private organization with this conflict of interest. The turnover of politicians into lobbyists is already unseemly.

I think regulations on the division of funding on the established political monopolies would make sense. A salary cap like you see in sports would be a radical change that could prevent corruption. Anything raised outside this system would be indefensible/un-coverable.

 

[JettDash]

Because the person who shares her vacation home

Well the her husband's, from before they were married.

and donates as much as legally possible to her campaign

Her husband's long time friend gives her campaign a $5400. Must be nefarious.

just settled a Medicare fraud case? McCaskill is on the finance committee responsible for handling Medicare and Medicaid funding.

Connect the dots for me. If she is a crook, how does she behave corruptly, and what does the house have to do with it.

Keep in mind that the case was settled by the Justice Department. Not the Senate finance committee.

I think people are just generally tired of not being able to trust their public leaders to do the right thing without needing a special investigation to uncover wrong-doings. My experience growing up and watching so many political leaders regardless of party parade around their lack of ethics, closing bridges, patron jobs, misallocation of money, general scandal leaves me as a person who is tired of pretending like politicians are normal people who cannot exert influence and power to get away with far more shit than everyone else.

Not all politicians are corrupt. No reason to believe McCaskill is. Though whoever wrote that crappy article tried and failed.

 

[oneils]

But...why? There hasn't been any sign of impropriety, no matter how hard this article wants us to walk away thinking there has been.

She has been involved in senior issues for most of her political career. She knows and care about them. I want her on that committee.

Because I hold them to a pretty high standard. I think there shouldn't even be the appearance of a conflict. And there clearly is one here. That's enough for me.

 

[Matt]

Because I hold them to a pretty high standard. I think there shouldn't even be the appearance of a conflict. And there clearly is one here. That's enough for me.

"Appearance of a conflict" is is a very broad brush. Almost anything can appear to be a conflict depending on how you look at it.

 

[belvedere]

The article seemed to be slowly building towards a grand finale, so I was bit surprised that it culminated into all of $14,600.

I'm not dismissing the undeniable, ethical hypocrisy here, but wow. Didn't Greitens get a single donation of $2 million?

 

[zelas]

So no one read the excerpts or the article? She's buddy-buddy with the kind of people she's supposed to regulate. Whether you're a Democrat or Republican, that's blatant corruption.

What???? It is not. Having a relationship with a donor alone is never going to be considered corruption. Her legislative action in regards to this donor is what determines whether she's corrupted or not.

 

[JustenP88]

Repeat after me: There's absolutely zero problem with how a candidate funds their campaign unless:

A. You can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the transaction resulted in some sort of quid pro quo.

B. The candidate is running as a Republican.

Really wish people would just ignore these issues when they don't meet the aforementioned criteria.

 

[JettDash]

The article seemed to be slowly building towards a grand finale, so I was bit surprised that it culminated into all of $14,600.

I'm not dismissing the undeniable, ethical hypocrisy here, but wow. Didn't Greitens get a single donation of $2 million?

What's wrong with her campaign receiving donations from her husband's friend?

And certainly Greitens campaign did not receive a $2 million (which would be illegal). Maybe an associated SuperPac did.

 

[The Technomancer]

Repeat after me: There's absolutely zero problem with how a candidate funds their campaign unless:

A. You can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the transaction resulted in some sort of quid pro quo.

B. The candidate is running as a Republican.

Really wish people would just ignore these issues when they don't meet the aforementioned criteria.

Haha very funny. I'm not entirely comfortable with a lot of the wealth reps and politicians in general often have access to, but I don't think the people who are saying "yes but what has McCaskill actually done?" are that off base

 

[belvedere]

What's wrong with her campaign receiving donations from her husband's friend?

And certainly Greitens campaign did not receive a $2 million (which would be illegal). Maybe an associated SuperPac did.

Nothing and its perfectly legal as far as I'm aware. But there's hypocrisy in taking money from a source who has been repeatedly accused of the very thing your early campaign fought against, no? You can lower your defenses by the way, I'm a registered dem in Missouri who's voted for McCaskill numerous times now.

Yes, a Super Pac donation that IIRC, was the largest single donation in Missouri history. I only mentioned it to draw contrast.

 

[Laekon]

This article is a lot like one about Dianne Feinstein that came out years ago. It talks about how much money her husband's company is making after getting a contract to sell off USPS property. Lots of sites didn't bother to check and see that Feinstein voted to stop the selling. Plus the USPS had control of the selection of contractor and each sale.

Not sure if it is allowed but this is a great comparison showing how Breitbart is years late on the story but doesn't use any of the information that came out as corrections in the Huffington Post piece.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/12/dianne-feinstein-postal-service_n_4423045.html
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...company-to-bag-1-billion-for-government-deal/

 

[JustenP88]

Haha very funny. I'm not entirely comfortable with a lot of the wealth reps and politicians in general often have access to, but I don't think the people who are saying "yes but what has McCaskill actually done?" are that off base

I guess my concern with that line of thinking is that, if these people are actually decent at what they do, any concession they make that may be a result of this influence will be adequately hidden or there will be a thoroughly planned narrative in place as to why the move is good for business, economy, jobs, innovation or whatever. Not every instance of corruption is as brazen as the Republican's assertion that climate change is a hoax or the entirety of Donald Trump's existence. It just feels like we're giving them plausible deniability from the jump.

I'm not saying that people should abstain from voting when an election is between a rich Democrat and a Republican. I just think it would be good for the party's image to have as many Ds willing to take a rhetorical and practical hardline stance against the overflow of money in politics as possible. Deserved or not, the party has an image problem re: cronyism that hits harder with moderate/liberal sensibilities than it does for an Evangelical or Tea Party type. The Republican base doesn't give a shit about hypocrisy and Ken Bone's glasses can't help him see the difference between Trump and Clinton. Maybe fence sitters will be swayed by a hard anti-corruption/reform campaign, or maybe I'm naive.

Cute attempt, but no. The problem people have with this article isn't the lack of a smoking gun, the problem is that no one was shot. There are no actual claims of impropriety in McCaskill's part, just a lot of talk about the bad things someone she knows did.

Like I said before, classic hatchet job.

Cute attempt but I very obviously clearly don't feel that there's any value in waiting for "someone to get shot" before criticizing the way campaigns are financed. I don't see any value in desperately trying to shield a politician from criticism and potentially enabling the shooting that you want to see.

 

[Forward]

The thing that gets me more than anything is that Senators can be bought for $5k-$15k. That's like pennies to a corporation, who can then reap millions/billions in regulatory changes.

That's... far, FAR less than pennies to corporations that actually lobby.

That ain't even Superman 3 done Gibbons Style.

 

[Matt]

Repeat after me: There's absolutely zero problem with how a candidate funds their campaign unless:

A. You can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the transaction resulted in some sort of quid pro quo.

B. The candidate is running as a Republican.

Really wish people would just ignore these issues when they don't meet the aforementioned criteria.

Cute attempt, but no. The problem people have with this article isn't the lack of a smoking gun, the problem is that no one was shot. There are no actual claims of impropriety in McCaskill's part, just a lot of talk about the bad things someone she knows did.

Like I said before, classic hatchet job.

 

[Dr. Worm]

I guess my concern with that line of thinking is that, if these people are actually decent at what they do, any concession they make that may be a result of this influence will be adequately hidden or there will be a thoroughly planned narrative in place as to why the move is good for business, economy, jobs, innovation or whatever.

That's just paranoia, I think.

 

[JustenP88]

That's just paranoia, I think.

What inspires a Republican to say "climate change is a hoax?" What influence led them to that conclusion? Why would you assume that anyone in office is immune to that influence?

How in the world is the basic recognition of the corrupting influence of money "paranoia?" Lobbyists pay for access. Lobbyists help with messaging. Lobbyists help write laws. Did I just get so high one time that my brain broke and I'm imagining things, or are all those statements pretty much universally understood facts?

 

[Lupercal]

Most politicians in America are corrupt, it's a given really.

 

[Sp3eD]

Looks more like a frozen daiquiri then a mojito tbh

Somebody is trying too hard with the mint leaf there.

 

[Dr. Worm]

I think if you're going with no proof of any kind of corruption and nothing that could be resultant of possible corruption, that's paranoia.

I'm all for shaming corrupt Dems, but I think you're looking for something that isn't there.

 

[Matt]

What inspires a Republican to say "climate change is a hoax?" What influence led them to that conclusion? Why would you assume that anyone in office is immune to that influence?

Some of it is money, but Republicans also reject climate change because that lines up with their world view.

A proper response to climate change needs government-mandated collective action. They think that is inherently bad. So you fix that problem by just believing climate change doesn't exist.

 

[Fenderputty]

Cute attempt but I very obviously clearly don't feel that there's any value in waiting for "someone to get shot" before criticizing the way campaigns are financed. I don't see any value in desperately trying to shield a politician from criticism and potentially enabling the shooting that you want to see.

Wow you're not a pretentious ass or anything lol

 

[Flo_Evans]

I've never really liked McCaskill but she is better than a (R) in the seat.

Pretty much Hillary lite, oh you can't prove anything illegal happened but she sure is tight with all the donors!

 

[Matt]

I've never really liked McCaskill but she is better than a (R) in the seat.

Pretty much Hillary lite, oh you can't prove anything illegal happened but she sure is tight with all the donors!

Again, there isn't even a suggestion anything illegal happened here.

 

[JustenP88]

I think if you're going with no proof of any kind of corruption and nothing that could be resultant of possible corruption, that's paranoia.

I'm all for shaming corrupt Dems, but I think you're looking for something that isn't there.

I'm advocating for thinking about corruption proactively as opposed to waiting and reacting to it whenever it becomes blatantly obvious.

I don't think I've directly accused McCaskill of anything in particular.

Some of it is money, but Republicans also reject climate change because that lines up with their world view.

A proper response to climate change needs government-mandated collective action. They think that is inherently bad. So you fix that problem by just believing climate change doesn't exist.

I mean, I think the core of their ideology is inherently influenced by wealth. The dogged opposition to government involvement in anything that some dude with money thinks he can make a buck off of is influenced by private wealth.

Wow you're not a pretentious ass or anything lol

Yay, another drive-by "you're a douche" post from old baseball man.

 

[Matt]

I'm advocating for thinking about corruption proactively as opposed to waiting and reacting to it whenever it becomes blatantly obvious.

I don't think I've directly accused McCaskill of anything in particular.

Than maybe this isn't the right place to make that point?

The corrupting influence of money in politics is a very worthwhile topic of discussion. But doing it in this thread just comes off as accusing someone of a crime that we have no reason to think she committed.

 

[Fenderputty]

Yay, another drive-by "you're a douche" post from old baseball man.

Yeah I'm a drive by douche while you make posts assuming Matt wants to see people "shot".

 

[JustenP88]

Than maybe this isn't the right place to make that point?

The corrupting influence of money in politics is a very worthwhile topic of discussion. But doing it in this thread just comes off as accusing someone of a crime that we have no reason to think she committed.

I've kinda inferred that as the whole point behind the article, but I guess you're of the opinion that the article is inherently unfair to McCaskill making the discussion moot? I guess that's where we diverge. I think criticism of the appearance of impropriety is fine and healthy. She can respond, shut it down and continue without corruption or she can ignore it. Shit'll all work out however it works out.

Yeah I'm a drive by douche while you make posts assuming Matt wants to see people "shot".

Ummmm... Did you read the post I responded to? Do you honestly think my use of the same "smoking gun" rhetorical device that Matt used was meant as an assertion that Matt wants to see people actually, literally shot?

Matt, if you also interpreted it that way, that's my bad.

Fenderputty, idgaf.

 

[Fenderputty]

Ummmm... Did you read the post I responded to? Do you honestly think my use of the same "smoking gun" rhetorical device that Matt used was meant as an assertion that Matt wants to see people actually, literally shot?
.

You think I put "shot" in quotes because I thought you were literally meaning "to shoot" lol

You're suggesting people defending McCaskill here are content (you actually said "want") with waiting for bad/corrupt shit to happen before we give a damn and that is offensive.

 

[Sirpopopop]

Of course not. That doesn't mean I can't speak out against practices like this.

And you know what the end result is:

"Man... both sides."

The same thing that lead us to Donald Fucking Trump, GWB in 2000, etc.

The only thing that should matter in these times is that she's a better vote than we would normally get out of Missouri.

 

[Matt]

I've kinda inferred that as the whole point behind the article, but I guess you're of the opinion that the article is inherently unfair to McCaskill making the discussion moot? I guess that's where we diverge. I think criticism of the appearance of impropriety is fine and healthy. She can respond, shut it down and continue without corruption or she can ignore it. Shit'll all work out however it works out.

OK, so that is the issue we are having. The point of this article is absolutely NOT to be a general comment on money in politics. The point of it is to directly attack McCaskill, to tar her specifically with this connection, even though there is no reason to think she has done anything wrong.

I've personally seen this lots of time, and to be honest I have had a hand in pushing pieces like this before. This is a particularly transparent and baseless example.

Ummmm... Did you read the post I responded to? Do you honestly think my use of the same "smoking gun" rhetorical device that Matt used was meant as an assertion that Matt wants to see people actually, literally shot?

Matt, if you also interpreted it that way, that's my bad.

Fenderputty, idgaf.

I in no way thought you thought I wanted to see people shot.

But I do think dismissing this article is not at all the same as not wanting to proactive about corruption.

 

[JustenP88]

OK, so that is the issue we are having. The point of this article is absolutely NOT to be a general comment on money in politics. The point of it is to directly attack McCaskill, to tar her specifically with this connection, even though there is no reason to think she has done anything wrong.

I've personally seen this lots of time, and to be honest I have had a hand in pushing pieces like this before. This is a particularly transparent and baseless example.


I in no way thought you thought I wanted to see people shot.

But I do think dismissing this article is not at all the same as not wanting to proactive about corruption.

Fair enough. My personal inclinations on this issue led me to separate the article and McCaskill from the discussion pretty much immediately. I guess the topic of the thread is the topic of the article regardless of what sort of shit I want to get on lol.

You think I put "shot" in quotes because I thought you were literally meaning "to shoot" lol

You're suggesting people defending McCaskill here are content (you actually said "want") with waiting for bad/corrupt shit to happen before we give a damn and that is offensive.

Bro, you're being such a centrist right now

 

[Hindl]

Seems like a whole lotta nothing

 

[Kettch]

What inspires a Republican to say "climate change is a hoax?" What influence led them to that conclusion? Why would you assume that anyone in office is immune to that influence?

How in the world is the basic recognition of the corrupting influence of money "paranoia?" Lobbyists pay for access. Lobbyists help with messaging. Lobbyists help write laws. Did I just get so high one time that my brain broke and I'm imagining things, or are all those statements pretty much universally understood facts?

There's a really big problem with your analogy here. McCaskill is opposed to and attempting to clean up the type of corruption that her family friend committed.

This isn't like a Republican getting money from fossil fuel industries and then claiming climate change is a hoax. It's like a Republican getting money from fossil fuel industries and then claiming climate change is an important problem that we need to focus on by regulating the fossil fuel industries.

This is an example of a politician not being corrupted by money in politics. The exact type of people we need in office.

 

[whyamihere]

This article is so stupid and the OP fell for it. Great job, guys. Hope you enjoy your Republican Missouri Senator in 2018.

 

[sonicmj1]

If direct donations to a political campaign within federally-defined limits constitute a corrupt exchange of money, then I'm not sure what sorts of donations people expect the rich to make to political campaigns.

 

[whyamihere]

If direct donations to a political campaign within federally-defined limits constitute a corrupt exchange of money, then I'm not sure what sorts of donations people expect the rich to make to political campaigns.

It reminds me of the poster who once said that after they leave office, politicians should be barred from working in "industry".

 

[Fenderputty]

I guess the topic of the thread is the topic of the article regardless of what sort of shit I want to get on lol.

Unfortunately ... yes. I would read a thread on general corruption in politics and ideas on how to address that though. There's just too many people falling for this hatchet job of an OP for this to be about anything but ...

Bro, you're being such a centrist right now

Finally you've said something nice

 

[JettDash]

Nothing and its perfectly legal as far as I'm aware. But there's hypocrisy in taking money from a source who has been repeatedly accused of the very thing your early campaign fought against, no? You can lower your defenses by the way, I'm a registered dem in Missouri who's voted for McCaskill numerous times now.

Yes, a Super Pac donation that IIRC, was the largest single donation in Missouri history. I only mentioned it to draw contrast.

According to the story, the last donation came on June 26. While DeStefane made a deal with the feds a couple days later. She didn't really know the full story until it was released it was to the public on July 5th.

I looked it up, and I can't find anything else about Reliant at all.. . All that stuff the reporter dug up she probably by searching through records.

So no, she was not hypocritical. But rather unaware.

 

[Matt]

According to the story, the last donation came on June 26. While DeStefane made a deal with the feds a couple days later. She didn't really know the full story until it was released it was to the public's on July 5th.

I looked it up, and I can't find anything else about Reliant at all.. I took it upon myself thank you very much. All that stuff the reporter dug up she probably by searching through records.

More likely it came from the NRSC or the Missouri state Republican Party.

 

[eatingforwork]

Bernie Sanders, the people's champion, owns a 600,000 dollar vacation home. Here's a newsflash, Senators are usually richer than the average nobody.

Ha, I own a vacation home works $600K, but you don't see me in politics. And like others have said, that amount of money for a home (regular or vacation) is downright modest in my neck of the woods.

 

[JettDash]

More likely it came from the NRSC or the Missouri Republican state party.

probably


Stupid "progressive" pieces of shit ready to turn on a Democratic Senator because Republicans manipulated them.

 

[eBay Huckster]

It reminds me of the poster who once said that after they leave office, politicians should be barred from working in "industry".

man, that's still my favorite politics-OT post of all time and I can't fuckin' find it anywhere

 

[JettDash]

To you dumb fucks outs out who thought you suddenly became experts on corruption and bribery: you didn't