Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Pay to play
insinceredawg
Member Posts: 5,117
in Tug Tavern
Remember when this board had their pitchforks up for Clinton's pay to play? Can't wait to hear the spin and excuses for this:
http://www.businessinsider.com/companies-paid-michael-cohen-trump-statements-explanations-2018-5?r=UK&IR=T
Three corporations are facing questions on Wednesday after making large payments to a consulting firm linked to President Donald Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen.
Novartis, a Swiss pharmaceutical firm; Korea Aerospace Industries, a South Korean defense contractor; and AT&T, the massive US telecom, all paid Cohen-linked Essential Consulting more than $150,000.
http://www.businessinsider.com/companies-paid-michael-cohen-trump-statements-explanations-2018-5?r=UK&IR=T
Three corporations are facing questions on Wednesday after making large payments to a consulting firm linked to President Donald Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen.
Novartis, a Swiss pharmaceutical firm; Korea Aerospace Industries, a South Korean defense contractor; and AT&T, the massive US telecom, all paid Cohen-linked Essential Consulting more than $150,000.
Comments
And it's definitely not relevant that AT&T was the first company to announce bonuses after the tax cut.
But this has legs.
Are you stupid enough to believe their explanations?
And paying attorneys for access is something new? You're guessing some bad motive but you don't know shit. As usual
Its called lobbying. Look it up. Everybody does it
Governments often define and regulate organized group lobbying[8][9][10][11] as part of laws to prevent political corruption and by establishing transparency about possible influences by public lobby registers.
Lobby groups may concentrate their efforts on the legislatures, where laws are created, but may also use the judicial branch to advance their causes. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, for example, filed suits in state and federal courts in the 1950s to challenge segregation laws. Their efforts resulted in the Supreme Court declaring such laws unconstitutional.
They may use a legal device known as amicus curiae, literally "friend of the court," briefs to try to influence court cases. Briefs are written documents filed with a court, typically by parties to a lawsuit. Amici curiae briefs are briefs filed by people or groups who are not parties to a suit. These briefs are entered into the court records, and give additional background on the matter being decided upon. Advocacy groups use these briefs both to share their expertise and to promote their positions.
The lobbying industry is affected by the revolving door concept, a movement of personnel between roles as legislators and regulators and the industries affected by the legislation and regulation, as the main asset for a lobbyist is contacts with and influence on government officials. This industrial climate is attractive for ex-government officials. It can also mean substantial monetary rewards for the lobbying firms and government projects and contracts in the hundreds of millions for those they represent.[12][13]
Impact
Kellogg School of Management [14] found that political donations by corporations do not increase shareholder value.
Lobbying by country
Australia
Over the past twenty years, lobbying in Australia has grown from a small industry of a few hundred employees to a multi-billion dollar per year industry. Lobbying has become a political fact of life and is now endemic in local, state, and federal government[contentious label]. It is not just the local councillors and state and federal politicians being lobbied.[editorializing] What was once the preserve of big multinational companies and at a more local level, property developers, for example Urban Taskforce Australia, has morphed into an industry that would employ more than 10,000 people and represent every facet of human endeavour.[15]
Public lobbyist registers
A register of federal lobbyists is kept by the Australian Government and is accessible to the public via its website.[16] Similar registers for State government lobbyists were introduced between 2007 and 2009 around Australia. Since April 2007 in Western Australia, only lobbyists listed on the state's register are allowed to contact a government representative for the purpose of lobbying.[17] Similar rules have applied in Tasmania since 1 September 2009[18] and in South Australia and Victoria since 1 December 2009.[19][20]
European Union
Wikimania 2009, results of the discussion about possible contents of European lobbying
According to Austrian Member of the European Parliament ("MEP") Hans-Peter Martin, the value of lobby invitations and offers each individual MEP receives can reach up to €10,000 per week.[21]
In 2003 there were around 15,000 lobbyists (consultants, lawyers, associations, corporations, NGOs etc.) in Brussels seeking to influence the EU’s legislation. Some 2,600 special interest groups had a permanent office in Brussels. Their distribution was roughly as follows: European trade federations (32%), consultants (20%), companies (13%), NGOs (11%), national associations (10%), regional representations (6%), international organizations (5%) and think tanks (1%), (Lehmann, 2003, pp iii).[22][23] In addition to this, lobby organisations sometimes hire former EU employees (a phenomenon known as the revolving door) who possess inside knowledge of the EU institutions and policy process [24] A report by Transparency International EU published in January 2017 analysed the career paths of former EU officials and found that 30% of Members of the European Parliament who left politics went to work for organisations on the EU lobby register after their mandate and approximately one third of Commissioners serving under Barroso took jobs in the private sector after their mandate, including for Uber, ArcelorMittal, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America Merrill Lynch. These potential conflicts of interest could be avoided if a stronger ethics framework would be established at the EU level, including an independent ethics body and longer cooling-off periods for MEPs.[24]
In the wake of the Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal in Washington D.C. and the massive impact this had on the lobbying scene in the United States, the rules for lobbying in the EU—which until now consist of only a non-binding code of conduct-—may also be tightened.[25]
France
But there is currently no regulation at all for lobbying activities in France and, as a consequence, this practice suffers from a lack of transparency[editorializing]. There is no regulated access to the French institutions and no register specific to France, but there is one for the European Union[26] where French lobbyists can register themselves.[27] For example, the internal rule of the National Assembly (art. 23 and 79) forbids members of Parliament to be linked with a particular interest. Also, there is no rule at all for consultation of interest groups by the Parliament and the Government. Nevertheless, a recent parliamentary initiative (motion for a resolution) has been launched by several MPs so as to establish a register for representatives of interest groups and lobbyists who intend to lobby the MPs.[28]
Italy
A 2016 study finds evidence of significant indirect lobbying of Berlusconi through business proxies.[29] The authors document a significant pro-Mediaset (the mass media company founded and controlled by Berlusconi) bias in the allocation of advertising spending during Berlusconi's political tenure, in particular for companies operating in more regulated sectors.[29]
United Kingdom
Main article: Lobbying in the United Kingdom
United States
Main article: Lobbying in the United States
K Street NW at 19th Street in Washington D.C., part of downtown Washington's maze of high-powered "K Street lobbyist" and law firm office buildings.
Lobbying in the United States describes paid activity in which special interests hire professional advocates to argue for specific legislation in decision-making bodies such as the United States Congress. Lobbying in the United States could be seen to originate from Amendment I of the Constitution of the United States, which states: Congress shall make no law…abridging the right of the people peaceably…to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Some lobbyists are now using social media to reduce the cost of traditional campaigns, and to more precisely target public officials with political messages.[30]
A number of published studies showed lobbying expenditure is correlated with great financial returns. For example, a 2011 study of the 50 firms that spent the most on lobbying relative to their assets compared their financial performance against that of the S&P 500 in the stock market concluded that spending on lobbying was a "spectacular investment" yielding "blistering" returns comparable to a high-flying hedge fund, even despite the financial downturn of the past few years.[31] A 2011 meta-analysis of previous research findings found a positive correlation between corporate political activity and firm performance.[32] Finally, a 2009 study found that lobbying brought a substantial return on investment, as much as 22,000% in some cases.[33]
Foreign-funded lobbying efforts include those of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, and China lobbies. In 2010 alone, foreign governments spent approximately $460 million on lobbying members of Congress and government officials.[34]
Other countries
Other countries where lobbying is regulated in parliamentary bills include:
Canada: Canada maintains a Registry of Lobbyists.[35]
Israel (1994)[36]
India: In India, where there is no law regulating the process, lobbying had traditionally been a tool for industry bodies (like FICCI) and other pressure groups to engage with the government ahead of the national budget. One reason being that lobbying activities were repeatedly identified in the context of corruption cases. For example, in 2010 , leaked audio transcripts of Nira Radia. Not only private companies but even Indian government has been paying a fee every year since 2005 to a US firm to lobby; for ex. to the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal. In India, there are no laws that defined the scope of lobbying, who could undertake it, or the extent of disclosure necessary. Companies are not mandated to disclose their activities and lobbyists are neither authorized nor encouraged to reveal the names of clients or public officials they have contacted. The distinction between
lobbying and bribery still remains unclear. In 2012, Walmart revealed it had spent $25 million since 2008 on lobbying to "enhance market access for investment in India." This disclosure, which came weeks after the Indian government made a controversial decision to permit FDI in the country's multi-brand retail sector.
I mean we never copy and paste wikipedia here
EVER!
Serikali mara nyingi hufafanua na kusimamia ushauri wa kundi uliopangwa [8] [9] [10] [11] kama sehemu ya sheria kuzuia rushwa ya kisiasa na kwa kuanzisha uwazi juu ya ushawishi wa uwezekano wa madaftari ya umma.
Makundi ya makundi yanaweza kuzingatia juhudi zao juu ya wabunge, ambapo sheria zinaundwa, lakini pia zinaweza kutumia tawi la mahakama ili kuendeleza sababu zao. Chama cha Kitaifa cha Kuendeleza Watu wa rangi, kwa mfano, kufungua suti katika mahakama za serikali na shirikisho katika miaka ya 1950 ili kukabiliana na sheria za ubaguzi. Jitihada zao zilipelekea Mahakama Kuu kutangaza sheria hizo kinyume na katiba.
Wanaweza kutumia kifaa cha kisheria kinachojulikana kama amicus curiae, kwa kweli "rafiki wa mahakama," maelezo ya kujaribu kushawishi kesi za mahakamani. Michango ni nyaraka zilizoandikwa zilizowekwa na mahakama, kwa kawaida kwa vyama vya mashtaka. Maandishi ya Amici curiae ni maandishi yaliyotolewa na watu au vikundi ambavyo si vyama vya suti. Machapisho haya yameingia kwenye rekodi za mahakama, na kutoa historia ya ziada juu ya jambo lililochaguliwa. Vikundi vya utetezi hutumia machapisho haya wote kushirikiana utaalamu wao na kukuza nafasi zao.
Sekta ya kushawishi imeathirika na dhana ya mlango unaozunguka, harakati ya wafanyakazi kati ya majukumu kama wabunge na wasimamizi na viwanda vinavyoathiriwa na sheria na kanuni, kwa kuwa mali kuu ya lobbyist ni mawasiliano na ushawishi kwa viongozi wa serikali. Hali hii ya viwanda inavutia kwa viongozi wa zamani wa serikali. Inaweza pia kuwa na malipo makubwa ya fedha kwa makampuni ya kushawishi na miradi ya serikali na mikataba katika mamia ya mamilioni kwa wale wanaowawakilisha. [12] [13]
Athari
Shule ya Kellogg ya Usimamizi [14] iligundua kuwa misaada ya kisiasa na mashirika hayakuongeza thamani ya wanahisa.
Kukubaliana na nchi
Australia
Zaidi ya miaka ishirini iliyopita, kushawishi nchini Australia imeongezeka kutoka kwa sekta ndogo ndogo ya wafanyakazi mia chache kwa sekta ya dola bilioni kila mwaka. Kukubaliana imekuwa ukweli wa kisiasa wa maisha na sasa umepungua katika serikali ya mitaa, serikali, na shirikisho. Sio tu wakurugenzi wa mitaa na wanasiasa wa serikali na shirikisho wanapaswa kushawishiwa. [Editorializing] Nini mara moja kuhifadhiwa kwa makampuni makubwa ya kimataifa na kwa ngazi zaidi ya ndani, watengenezaji wa mali, kwa mfano Mjini Taskforce Australia, amefanya biashara katika sekta ambayo ingekuwa kutumia watu zaidi ya 10,000 na kuwakilisha kila kipengele cha jitihada za binadamu. [15]
Wasajili wa umma wa lobbyist
Daftari ya lobbyists ya shirikisho inachukuliwa na Serikali ya Australia na inapatikana kwa umma kupitia tovuti yake. [16] Daftari zinazofanana za wilaya za serikali za Serikali zilianzishwa kati ya 2007 na 2009 karibu na Australia. Tangu Aprili 2007 katika Australia Magharibi, wachache tu wanaosajiliwa kwenye usajili wa serikali wanaruhusiwa kuwasiliana na mwakilishi wa serikali kwa lengo la kushawishi. [17] Sheria kama hiyo imetumika Tasmania tangu 1 Septemba 2009 [18] na Kusini mwa Australia na Victoria tangu 1 Desemba 2009. [19] [20]
Umoja wa Ulaya
Wikimania 2009, matokeo ya majadiliano juu ya maudhui yaliyowezekana ya kushawishi Ulaya
Kwa mujibu wa Bunge la Ulaya la Bunge la Ulaya ("MEP") Hans-Peter Martin, thamani ya mwaliko wa kushawishi na inatoa kila MEP inapokea inaweza kufikia hadi € 10,000 kwa wiki. [21]
Mwaka 2003 kulikuwa na wakubwa wa karibu 15,000 (washauri, wanasheria, vyama, mashirika, mashirika yasiyo ya kiserikali nk) huko Brussels wanaotaka kushawishi sheria ya EU. Makundi mawili ya riba ya 2,600 yalikuwa na ofisi ya kudumu huko Brussels. Usambazaji wao ulikuwa kama ifuatavyo: shirikisho la biashara ya Ulaya (32%), washauri (20%), makampuni (13%), NGOs (11%), vyama vya kitaifa (10%), uwakilishi wa kikanda (6%), mashirika ya kimataifa ( 5%) na fikiria mizinga (1%), (Lehmann, 2003, pp iii). [22] [23] Mbali na hayo, mashirika ya kushawishi wakati mwingine huajiri wafanyakazi wa zamani wa EU (jambo linalojulikana kama mlango unaozunguka) ambao wana ndani ya ujuzi wa taasisi za EU na mchakato wa sera [24] Ripoti ya Transparency International EU iliyochapishwa Januari 2017 ilibainisha njia za kazi za viongozi wa zamani wa EU na kupatikana kuwa 30% ya Wanachama wa Bunge la Ulaya ambao waliondoka siasa walifanya kazi kwa mashirika kwenye usajili wa kushawishi wa EU baada ya mamlaka yao na wastani wa theluthi moja ya Wajumbe waliofanya chini ya Barroso walipata kazi katika sekta binafsi baada ya mamlaka yao, ikiwa ni pamoja na kwa Uber, ArcelorMittal, Goldman Sachs na Benki ya Amerika Merrill Lynch. Migogoro hii ya uwezekano wa maslahi inaweza kuepukwa ikiwa mfumo wa maadili wenye nguvu utaanzishwa katika kiwango cha EU, ikiwa ni pamoja na mwili wa maadili ya kujitegemea na vipindi vingi vya kupumua kwa MEPs. [24]
Kwa mujibu wa kashfa ya kushawishi ya Hindi Abramoff nchini Washington DC na matokeo makubwa yaliyokuwa kwenye eneo la kushawishi nchini Marekani, sheria za kushawishi katika EU-ambazo hadi sasa zinajumuisha kanuni za uendeshaji zisizo na kisheria- -may pia kuwa imara. [25]
Ufaransa
Lakini sasa hakuna kanuni yoyote kwa shughuli za kushawishi nchini Ufaransa na, kwa sababu hiyo, mazoezi haya yanakabiliwa na ukosefu wa uwazi [editorializing]. Hakuna upatikanaji wa udhibiti wa taasisi za Ufaransa na hakuna usajili maalum kwa Ufaransa, lakini kuna moja ya Umoja wa Ulaya [26] ambapo wilaya ya lobbyists wanaweza kujiandikisha wenyewe. [27] Kwa mfano, utawala wa ndani wa Bunge (art 23 na 79) inakataza Wabunge kuwa na uhusiano na maslahi fulani. Pia, hakuna utawala wowote kwa mashauriano ya vikundi vya maslahi na Bunge na Serikali. Hata hivyo, mpango wa hivi karibuni wa bunge (mwendo wa azimio) umezinduliwa na wabunge kadhaa ili kuanzisha rejista kwa wawakilishi wa makundi ya riba na wawakilishi ambao wana nia ya kushawishi wabunge. [28]
Italia
Uchunguzi wa 2016 unaona ushahidi wa kushawishi kwa moja kwa moja wa Berlusconi kwa njia ya washirika wa biashara. [29] Waandishi wanaandika pro-Mediaset muhimu (kampuni ya vyombo vya habari iliyoanzishwa na kudhibitiwa na Berlusconi) kwa ugawaji wa matumizi ya matangazo wakati wa usimamiaji wa kisiasa wa Berlusconi, hasa kwa makampuni ya kazi katika sekta zaidi zilizosimamiwa. [29]
Uingereza
Makala kuu: Kujiunga huko Uingereza
Marekani
Makala kuu: Kujiunga huko Marekani
K Street NW katika Anwani ya 19 huko Washington D.C., sehemu ya mstari wa jiji wa Washington wa klabu ya "K Street lobbyist" yenye nguvu sana na majengo ya ofisi ya ofisi ya sheria.
Kukubaliana huko Marekani kunaelezea shughuli zilizolipwa ambazo maslahi maalum huajiri watetezi wa kitaaluma kuhusisha sheria maalum katika miili ya uamuzi kama vile United States Congress. Kukubaliana huko Marekani inaweza kuonekana kuanzia Marekebisho ya Katiba ya Umoja wa Mataifa, ambayo inasema: Congress haifanyi sheria ... kuifanya haki ya watu kwa amani ... kuomba serikali kwa marekebisho ya malalamiko. Washahidi wengine sasa wanatumia vyombo vya habari vya kijamii ili kupunguza gharama za kampeni za jadi, na zaidi kwa lengo la viongozi wa umma na ujumbe wa kisiasa. [30]
Masomo kadhaa yaliyochapishwa yalionyesha matumizi ya kushawishi yanahusiana na kurudi kwa fedha kubwa. Kwa mfano, uchunguzi wa 2011 wa makampuni 50 ambayo alitumia zaidi juu ya kushawishi jamaa na mali zao ikilinganishwa na utendaji wao wa kifedha dhidi ya ile ya S & P 500 katika soko la hisa alihitimisha kwamba matumizi ya juu ya kushawishi ilikuwa "uwekezaji wa ajabu" kutoa "kurudi" kurudi kulinganishwa na mfuko wa ua wa juu, hata licha ya kushuka kwa kifedha kwa miaka michache iliyopita. [31] Uchunguzi wa meta wa 2011 wa matokeo ya utafiti uliopita ulipata uwiano mzuri kati ya shughuli za kisiasa za ushirika na utendaji wa kampuni. [32] Hatimaye, uchunguzi wa 2009 uligundua kuwa ushawishi ulileta kurudi kwa kiasi kikubwa kwa uwekezaji, kama vile 22,000% katika baadhi ya matukio. [33]
Jitihada za kushawishi zinazofadhiliwa nje ya nchi ni pamoja na wale wa Israeli, Saudi Arabia, Uturuki, Misri, Pakistani na China. Mnamo mwaka 2010 peke yake, serikali za kigeni zilizotumia dola milioni 460 kwa kushawishi wanachama wa Congress na viongozi wa serikali. [34]
Nchi nyingine
Nchi zingine ambako kushawishi hutumiwa katika bili ya bunge ni pamoja na:
Kanada: Canada ina Msajili wa Lobbyists. [35]
Israeli (1994) [36]
Uhindi: Katika India, ambapo hakuna sheria inayoongoza mchakato huo, kushawishi kwa kawaida imekuwa chombo kwa vikundi vya sekta (kama vile FICCI) na vikundi vingine vya shinikizo kushirikiana na serikali kabla ya bajeti ya taifa. Sababu moja kuwa kuwa shughuli za kushawishi zilitambuliwa mara kwa mara katika mazingira ya kesi za rushwa. Kwa mfano, mwaka wa 2010, nakala za sauti za Nira Radia zilirekebishwa. Si tu makampuni binafsi lakini hata serikali ya Hindi imekuwa kulipa ada kila mwaka tangu 2005 kwa kampuni ya Marekani kwa kushawishi; kwa mfano. kwa mpango wa nyuklia wa Indo-US. Nchini India, hakuna sheria zinazoelezea upeo wa kushawishi, ambao wanaweza kuifanya, au kiwango cha ufunuo ni muhimu. Makampuni hawana mamlaka ya kufichua shughuli zao na wawakilishi hawana mamlaka wala kuhamasishwa kufungua majina ya wateja au viongozi wa umma waliowasiliana nao. Tofauti kati
kushawishi na rushwa bado haijulikani. Mnamo mwaka 2012, Walmart ilionyesha kuwa imetumia dola milioni 25 tangu mwaka 2008 kwa kushawishi "kuongeza ufikiaji wa soko kwa uwekezaji nchini India." Ufunuo huu, ambao ulikuja wiki baada ya serikali ya India iliamua uamuzi wa kuruhusu FDI katika sekta mbalimbali za rejareja nchini.
New bored motto?
It’s also funny that these corporations thought that paying bribes to the world’s dumbest lawyer would provide any actual access.