Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Conflicts of Interest

David:
I'm sure we'll be hearing a lot more over the next 2 months about the Clinton Foundation.

Doug:
I'm sure we'll be reading a lot more from you over the next 2 months about the Clinton Foundation. And rightly so! It has done many good things, and has received high marks from CharityWatch. It is nice to shine a bright light on those organizations that do good.

David:
Of course, doing something good does not outweigh breaking the law. If I rob a bank, and give $20 to a homeless person as I walk to my getaway car, it doesn't excuse my robbing the bank, or using the stolen money to do "good".

Doug:
You have learned well, little brother. But we're talking about Conflicts of Interest right now.

David:
There are many instances where we see people in powerful positions securing more power or huge deals that enrich them by what most of us would call "Conflicts of Interest"(COI). One such example appears to be Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and her husband.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/blum.asp

While there is no direct evidence that she intimidated the Postal Service into using her husband's company to sell off their properties, it would seem that ethical rules would preclude her husband's company from making the deal because of the COI.



Doug:
Strange that you would pick an example of Conflicts of Interest that has no evidence. Don't you think you could find a nice example of Conflicts of Interest with evidence? Perhaps when Judge Scalia was getting free travel and boarding from someone that won a favorable ruling from the supreme court?

David:
That would be a perfect example. Anytime someone in power exchanges some benefit in exchange for cash or more power is wrong. Like receiving sexual favors from an intern...

Doug:
How is having is having sex with an intern getting "cash or more power"? I don't see having sex with an intern as a Conflict of Interest issue. I do see it as an abuse of power. A very large abuse of power.

Other examples of Conflict of Interests: someone like Trump being president? Or Governor Chris Christie's office shutting down a bridge as political retribution? Or just the plain rules of congress?

David:
Well, now you've lost me. How does Donald Trump being president equal a COI?  And what in the world are you talking about the "rules of Congress"?

Doug:
Oh, sorry! I should explain how these little link things work. You have to click on them to follow the link. The first one leads to an article subtitled "Conflict-of-interest question would loom large if the Republican is elected". The second link (you have to click it!) leads to an article titled "Lucky for Congress, Blatant Conflict of Interest Is Still Perfectly Legal". Does that help?

David:
I'm asking you to explain how you think this works. Apparently, no successful businessman can be President? Ah, that's why you believe Obama and Clinton are perfect for the job: they are not successful business people.

Doug:
No president has ever been a successful president in the way that Trump is "successful" if that is what you mean.

David:
I believe the Christie scenario has the same problem about of evidence as the Clinton Foundation scandal.  No charges filed.

Doug:
No, you are wrong about that: this is very different. First, if you are going to call something a "scandal" then, for all of our sakes, please have some evidence. Any evidence. The evidence in Bridgegate is quite explicit: again, you have to click on the link to see that it says:
Kelly [Christie's Chief of Staff] had emailed Wildstein advising him that it was "time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee". She was fired by Christie, who said she had lied to him about her involvement. Renna [director of intergovernmental affairs] had previously written a phone text to a colleague saying that if some of her boss’s emails were discovered they would prove that he had “flat-out lied” about his role in the plot.
No one is arguing that there is no evidence. The only question is: how many people will be indicted? Clearly having political operatives making decisions on traffic is a Conflict of Interest. But that is New Jersey. I think they invented "conflict of interest."

David:
I believe his cohorts did something wrong. I don't believe there is any evidence tying Christie to any of that. As you mentioned, he fired people who were responsible. I have not heard that anyone in the justice department is looking any further into this at all, despite your "only question". There may be some investigation of the Clinton Foundation, however. It's the appearance of impropriety that causes the problem, and leads to frustration among the populace.

Doug:
As I said, it was Chris Christie's office. The trial for bridgegate is set for September 12, 2016. There is no investigation into the Clinton Foundation except in your mind.

David:
Back to the discussion. I think that Donald Trump is now where he is because of this corrupt COI, money for favors, Washington corruption. Bernie Sanders railed against Clinton's Wall Street ties, until he rolled over and endorsed her. People are tired of this type of behavior, and Freedom of Information lawsuits may finally expose some of it.

Doug:
I think all presidential candidates should show their income tax reports, to show any conflicts of interest.

David:
Income tax returns don't illustrate all of your business dealings. Re-read your link regarding Congressional rules (which are different from Congressional ethics). Most of those issues would not appear in a tax return.

Doug:
Tax returns would not reveal all possible conflicts. Are you arguing for more transparency, but at the same time supporting the candidate that refuses to do the standard of showing his tax returns?

David:
I'd like to see his tax returns. And Hillary's medical records.

A different problem that arises is that we want people with special knowledge of a particular field to write the legislation for that field. For example, if you were a congressman, I would trust that you would be an important contributor to a discussion of legislation regarding the internet, cyber security, or other issues related to the field of computer technology. If I were a legislator, I'd expect to be consulted when dealing with matters of health care, insurance, and issues related to medicine.

Doug:
No, I think you are wrong again. Having knowledge of a discipline is a first step, but that is not enough.

David:
Sometimes it can be a fine line between improving the field you work in, and having that improvement also help you yourself, even though that was not the intention. As we have seen too often, the ethical line is crossed when elected officials use that position to directly enrich themselves. That was really the point I was trying to make here, before we were so easily distracted.

Doug:
Perhaps you can just say that, rather than mentioning things that have nothing to do with your point, like the Clinton Foundation, or having sex with interns, or stealing money from a bank.

David:
Surely we can agree that this type of behavior should not be allowed, and should be rooted out of Washington. As Truman said, " You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook". Look around at how many elected officials are getting rich on the job.

Doug:
And you have to ask yourself: why would a business person want to be involved in politics at all? To help people? But yes, we could hope that congress would make Conflicts of Interests against the law. I think you are arguing for a change in congress. Luckily we have an election soon. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!