"to the point that a Facebook poster suggests that politicians wear suits covered with donation stickers, like Nascar drivers."Since restrictions on political giving can have free speech problems, I always thought the best way would be to turn the problem around. Put the onus on the politician accepting the bribe, er I mean donation.I think politicians should be required to know the background of each donor above some nominal amount. Then the politician should be forced to abstain from voting on any issue that would affect one of his known donors as a conflict of interest. So if a Big Oil executive gives money to a politician the politician would be required to abstain from any vote that would affect the oil industry. If a union gives money to a politician the politician would be required to abstain from voting on any union issues.This makes bribing, er donating money to, political officials counterproductive. If you give them money they cannot vote for your issues. It also aligns political ethics more with common sense ethics. In any job I have ever had if I accepted any gift (greater than a nominal amount) from a vendor or customer whose business my decisions affected, I would be fired on the spot.It will never happen of course because when would a bribe taker ever vote against taking bribes?
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar<