I'm no lawyer, so maybe Phil can help us out here. I noticed this little statute the other day.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/11/201

It states:

"(a) For the purpose of this section -
(1) the term "public official" means Member of Congress"

and that:

"(b) Whoever -
(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been
selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or
entity, with intent -
(A) to influence any official act"

So why does anyone argue over campaign finance, when bribery is already against the law?

well, I suppose you'd have to connect contributions with actions of the politicians. But I figured that would be so obvious, that it wouldn't necessitate a comment. It just seems to me that this statute isn't being enforced.

and for the penalty involved Jolene. I can kill my lover because she was cheating on me without committing a crime if she tries to kill me first and I act in self defense.

     And if I plan the murder ahead of time and do it willfully, that is first degree murder punishable by death in many states; if I do it in the heat of the moment, it may be only second degree and I get 30 years.

    And if I kill without being able to distinguish between right and wrong, I may have a complete insanity defense.

If I kill her recklessly or negligently, again the penalties are not as severe as First Degree.


So in the criminal law, "why" makes a big difference.

...but I would certainly think that if this is bribery, then Brown is hardly the only guilty one.

but to your earlier point about being strung up for horse stealing, back in those days stealing someones horse could easily cause the victim to die.

It all depends on whether the horse thief stole one of your 25 horses on your ranch, or if he stole your only horse 200 miles from civilization. I can understand why horse thieves were strung up. Many people would be in favor of stringing up bankers today, (or oilmen I suppose lol)

Or I'd feed you to Mr Wu's pigs.

...it  seems like this was a fund-raiser, so asking for money at such an event is what a politician does.  Besides, the key thing in the statute is the money has to be offered "to influence any official act."  Can you point out where in the audio that was done?  I,  too, find the Koch's despicable but they are allowed to make campaign contributions and one presumes they favor people who will push their agenda.  If you want to indict the entire way our political process is funded, that's fine.  I agree.  But I don't think you can accuse these people of breaking the law.

So I'll wait for our resident lawyers to respond.  But to me it's pretty obvious that, while our current system clearly is corrupt, if you want to jail Scott Brown and Mr. Koch, you'd better be prepared to do the same for all other 99 Senators and all 435 Congressmen.  They all raise funds from donors who want them to do something.  And, if all the two of them were doing is schmoozing, I mean, really!  Ever heard of the First Amendment?

anything when it's contrary to laws already in place?

__Arguments over gun control vs. none when we already have laws in place re murder
__Arguments over "why" a person murdered when (again) we already have laws in place for murder
__Arguments over "why" a person stole when we already have laws in place re thieves
__Arguments over unions vs. none when there is a minimum wage across the country

Now, I know this next is terribly naive-sounding but here it is:

"Why" a person did it (murder/force or theft/fraud) is of no interest to me. No, the question I want answered is "Did you do it or not?" If the person did it, he/she needs to face the consequences of their actions. If he/she didn't do it, then let that person go and hunt down the one(s) who did it.

The "why" isn't nearly as important for the simple fact that as adults (and even children down to certain age) we're responsible for any and all of our actions. (Note I said "simple." Owning one's responsibilities in our own lives isn't easy in any sense of the word, but it is simple.)

If you claim you killed your lover because:
he was cheating on you and
you came from a broken home and saw it all the time and hated it and
also you were on drugs at the time
and
and
and...

Stuff it. Stifle yourself. I stop listening after you admit you killed your lover.

Naive perhaps, but some things are yea or nay in my life's book.

As for the minimum wage thing, yes, it would be tough to live on and maybe you'd have to look for multiple jobs that are far below what you can do or are trained for. Maybe you'd have to go to another country. Maybe you'd have to create a job for yourself. Maybe you'd have to be homeless for awhile. But for those who aren't too proud to do what they need to in order to survive, there are honest (and dishonest [hobby & provider anyone?]) ways to make money.

Y'know, come to think of it, based on your posts, a lot of you wouldn't have survived in the Wild West when we didn't have most of these laws and entitlement programs!

Is that your idealized society?  Do you really want to go back there?  Watch a few seasons of "Deadwood," then answer the question again.  If it's an accurate portrayal (and I haven't heard anyone dispute it) it was a pretty grim, dog-eat-dog world -- especially if you were a prostitute.  Or maybe you think people should still be strung up for stealing a horse.  So, yes, I do think you're being naive.  And that's not to say I think people's lame excuses for breaking the law ought to cut any ice.  I don't.

but my point is that many who complain and bitch on here wouldn't have survived then because it WAS dog-eat-dog.

that with a guilty plea to boot. (We have a case like this here: She literally beat and starved her eldest child to death, pleaded guilty and so she was given the death penalty. The appeals process and her lawyer is trying to overturn this. I think she should be put to death.)



-- Modified on 3/7/2011 3:55:29 PM

That's one of the things that's so attractive about the hobby.  The law abiding aspect and the general desire to do the right thing.  Giving someone money in a way that breaks the law, would be unthinkable here.  So whomever is doing such a thing would never cut it in the hobby.

Can you imagine working for the Ian McShane character, Al Swearingen?  Now THAT would be no day at the beach!

-- Modified on 3/7/2011 6:13:13 PM

seldom rent movies. However, if it's that accurate, then I might be tempted to go rent it!

-- Modified on 3/7/2011 3:21:56 PM

One of the best HBO series ever.  Ian McShane plays the most magnetic villain I've ever seen.  He steals the show.  THe rest of the cast is great, too.  My wife doesn't like Westerns but she was totally hooked on it.

valuable in some ways than people.

Not even going to touch the bankers or oilmen part!

Although, if you're ever in my direction... LOL

-- Modified on 3/7/2011 3:46:37 PM

In the developed west bribery is called a lobby and the bribe is given by lobbyist paid for another party looking for. See, how sophisticated it is the actual briber is not directly connected. In the developing world it is straight forward, someone wants something, they find out whom to bribe and bribe.

I LOVE the way Wu said it!

They are paid (often by large corporations or interest groups like, say, the NRA) to try to influence a legislator's vote.  But they don't generally do it by offering money.  That's not to say it never happens (ask a convict known as Randy "Duke" Cunningham, former Congressman and fighter ace).  But it's far from the norm.

-- Modified on 3/7/2011 7:50:18 PM

and for no other reason.

a lot of congressmen adn Senators who voted for Obamacare would be in jail. The Dems were cutting huge deals/bribes in the back room for that one.

Seems a shame since the Roberts court will throw it out...

I thought I had heard it all, but I had never heard us chinks referred to as "Celestials" until DeadWood.

but at least we didn't have a "Nigger General", See, it's not really racist when you take shots at "everybody" lol

First, the audio is so bad, that I am not sure what is said.

However bribery laws tend to be "personal" - and that is not to be construed to literally - gifts for political favors.  I will give you $1,000 in cash, a car, etc.

They have never been contrued to relate to campaign donations.  You (everyone) supports the people who you agree with. I give money to a candidtate because I like his ideas and want to support him by paying for his TV ads so he can get elected and put those ideas into practice.  That is not bribery.

Apart from that the audio was so bad, and my ears are so old, that I can't say much.

I believe it stems from the fact that in the 19th century China was known as The Celestial Kingdom because the Emperor was divine.

-- Modified on 3/8/2011 1:37:01 PM