Nothing to see here

Democrat’s preferred form of corruption

Maybe Trump can get a board seat at Matel for Barron. I’m sure Democrats would approve.

21 thoughts on “Nothing to see here

    1. “Lame” indeed, in fact I don’t even understand the point of the post.

      There is absolutely nothing unusual or illegal about Board appointments such as the one described. I’ve commented here before about serving on Boards and while it may stick in some people’s craw it is simply Capitalism at its finest.

      Let me know if I need to explain it to anyone…

      Liked by 2 people

    2. Do you even understand the concept of ‘whataboutism?’

      You rail against money in politics but it’s OK if a legal workaround can be found? Is legal corruption any better than illegal corruption? There will always be a way to reward a complaint politician, that’s why I keep asserting that the only way to prevent government from being sold is for it to have nothing to sell.

      The only non-corrupt government is one which excludes force and fraud from the marketplace but otherwise leaves us free to make voluntary transactions as we choose.

      Like

      1. Yes, I understand “whataboutism.” Apparently you don’t. Here, let me explain. You are an enthusiastic supporter of the most banal and corrupt administration of modern times. So what do you do? Seek out stories to spread that may hint of corruption by others. And spread them.

        So, Ivanka Trump is cashing in big in China. Yeah, but WHATABOUT Chelsea Clinton?
        So, Jared Kushner is getting BILLIONS from Saudi Arabia. Yeah, but WHATABOUT Hunter Biden?
        And so on.

        “Is legal corruption better than illegal corruption?” Uh, yes. Duh.

        “There will always be a way to reward a compliant politician.” It seems so.
        Which is why Democrats are for much stricter regulation of campaign finance and/or public funding. Measures which the GOP strong oppose. Draw your own conclusion.

        Liked by 3 people

      2. “… that’s why I keep asserting that the only way to prevent government from being sold is for it to have nothing to sell.”

        That is impossible in a capitalist economy with a democratically elected form of representational government. A total unicorn.

        Congress is designed as a body that insures the representation of citizens from all regions of the US. And what are those interests in free market capitalism? Assurances that roads, water, trade laws, defense, courts, tariffs, will be favorable to each district are paramount to business. Environmental concerns that affect everyone need to be addressed and business wants assurances that they will not suffer profit losses no matter how equitable or even handed the laws. And business is jobs and jobs are bread and butter for voters.

        Absent regulations, businesses don’t care about consequences to anyone other than the owners. So Congress will ALWAYS have something to sell.

        And that being the case, campaign finances are the way business insures their interests are met. Which is why you always lament that Libertarians can never get elected.

        Yet you supported Citizens United and anonymity.

        You want a benevolent, everlasting dictatorship that does everything with only ethical considerations as the standard.

        Liked by 3 people

  1. I’ve never understood this line of attack, it’s completely bogus.

    Back when I was an auditor at all the companies I have audited, I can tell you that most of them had independent directors that were there just for their name and the potential contacts they could bring. They had no direct industry experience, or any HR/Finance experience to serve on the Audit Committee or Compensation Committee.

    As one example that gets many environmentalists upset: currently, Susan Avery is on the board of directors at Exxon. She gets pay and stock, just like Clinton, about $360K per year. Who is Susan Avery? Former head of the Wood’s Hole Oceanographic Institute. She has no experience and knows nothing about the oil/gas industry. She is not qualified to sit on the audit or compensation committee. She is there as a fig leaf to provide Exxon cover so they can say they listen to environmental concerns.

    And so what? Exxon wants to pay her that; she wants to do it, there you are.

    If you’re going to criticize people for this, you’re going to have to criticize several retired military officers, religious leaders – here’s an example: https://fortune.com/2015/10/15/theranos-board-leadership/

    Now, there may be good reasons, as the Fortune magazine article notes, to stop this practice. Mostly, boards of larger public companies are an incestuous bunch that just keep appointing one another to each other’s board of directors and bringing little actual value, governance or responsible, ethical guidance to the company. But one-off criticisms of this or that person making big $$ from a board position is unfair and proves nothing.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Ms Avery can resolve her conflict of interest by simply disclosing her connection when Exxon is involved.

      But the point you miss is that while not every case of conflict of interest is corrupt, board appointments of family members provides a legal means to reward a compliant politician.

      Even were it possible to close that loophole. I am sure another means would be found.

      What is important to note is that the only way to rid the government of corruption is to take away its powers to choose winners and losers in the marketplace.

      Like

      1. “way to rid the government of corruption is to take away its powers to choose winners and losers in the marketplace.”

        Maybe you should have just started with that easily defensible position instead of trying (and failing) to take a shot at the Dems..

        Liked by 2 people

  2. From the article: “Clinton’s public profile has proved a valuable commodity.”

    So where is the corruption? What influence is there? What was the point of your post? Also, keep in mind that Diller has been a friend of the Clinton’s for years. And Chelsea has a much cleaner background than any of Trump’s kids.

    Your straw grasping is as bad as Trump asking Ukraine to announce investigation. Get over it.

    CHELSEA 2028!!!

    Liked by 2 people

    1. So, a promised bribe at a later date is OK?

      But again, that supports my point. We can make laws till we run out if ink, and all we will accomplish is a game of legal whack-a-mole that goes on forever.

      A government that has the power to choose winners and losers in the marketplace will always be corrupt, only the mechanism will change.

      Like

      1. RE: “A government that has the power to choose winners and losers in the marketplace will always be corrupt, only the mechanism will change.”

        Well put. As an aside, it’s like a lottery: Everyone participates; only a few benefit. Lottery-type systems always become corrupt.

        Like

      2. “A government that has the power to choose winners and losers in the marketplace will always be corrupt, only the mechanism will change.”

        Adding to my previous post, so long as it takes millions of dollars for legislative seats and executive positions in government, the government, by default, will be expected to, and will continue, to pick winners and losers.

        Increase the number of legislators so that they will be closer to their actual, voting constituents, shorten campaign time to a couple of months tops, prohibit campaign donations from any person that cannot physically cast a ballot for the candidate, prohibit business and special interests from donating and make sure all donors are listed as public record.

        There is no reason Apple or Exxon or Ford or casinos in Vegas should donate to my Congressman or Senator. If they want to have a say about who is in Congress, let them campaign separately to convince me and my neighbors to vote for someone. And regulate that so their is no anonymity.

        ” It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”

        And you expect those same people to not give big bucks to legislators that will favor their own interests politically for economic gain? And then expect results when in office. And if what they need is not law yet, that they won’t make a law for favorable treatment?

        Liked by 1 person

    2. Exactly how would Chelsea being on the board of IAC be helpful in a corrupt manner? It just doesn’t exist except in the minds of those who believe Trump is NOT corrupt. If the Clinton name is beneficial to the company, then what is the problem?Oh, right. Her maiden name is Clinton.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s