Democrats on the House Oversight Committee sent letters to oil companies requesting more information about their executives’ meeting with Donald Trump.

Lawmakers demand details of a Mar-a-Lago dinner where Trump promised to ease regulations on the oil industry while asking executives to steer $1 billion to his 2024 campaign.

  • blazera@lemmy.worldEnglish
    5015·
    6 months ago

    If democrats wanna go after trump for soliciting bribes, maybe they should work on outlawing those bribes and stop accepting them themselves.

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      351·
      6 months ago

      Lobbying donations are legal in order to keep the money exchange transparent, specifically so officials can be held accountable for quid pro quo exchange. What Trump reportedly said was exactly what’s not legal, promising eased regulations or preferential treatment in exchange for donations.

    • AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.world
      11·
      6 months ago

      Fortunately for them, Drumpf is dumb enough to break the few laws we do have so they don’t need to reign anything in to get him.

    • InternetUser2012@midwest.social
      2·
      6 months ago

      Lol, a little difference between lobbying, and offering services for specific dollar amounts, that just happens to be SURPRISE!!! ILLEGAL. Shocker right? I know, republikkklowns just look the other way, rules for thee not for meeeeeeee.

      • blazera@lemmy.worldEnglish
        11·
        6 months ago

        Lol, a little difference between lobbying, and offering services for specific dollar amounts,

        nope

        • InternetUser2012@midwest.social
          2·
          6 months ago

          Give me money to potentially sway my vote in a way that helps you. Ok.

          I tell you give me a million and i’ll make that vote happen. Illegal and not ok.

          I’m sure at this point you’re just a troll, but there is a difference there.

          • blazera@lemmy.worldEnglish
            11·
            6 months ago

            Sway your vote? Man lobbyists hand you the whole prewritten legislation to sponsor for their money. Legal because its going to your election campaign instead of directly to you.

      • blazera@lemmy.worldEnglish
        12·
        6 months ago

        Im not just calling out hypocrisy, i mean it literally, they cant do anything about this because laws are very lenient for campaign donations. So if they actually want to stop this, they do actually need to make legislative changes.

  • Sanctus@lemmy.worldEnglish
    181·
    6 months ago

    Why? Just abolish Citizens United and make lobbying equate to the bribery it is. Nothing will truly be fixed until that happens.

    • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
      44·
      6 months ago

      “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

      You can’t take away the last bit.

      • qantravon@lemmy.worldEnglish
        231·
        6 months ago

        Giving politicians money and then asking them to pass a bill favorable to you is not “petitioning the government,” it’s bribery. If corps and billionaires want to try to convince the politicians that they should pass the bills they want, they can still do that. There just shouldn’t be money changing hands.

      • TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zipEnglish
        11·
        6 months ago

        But a corporation is not entitled to that. Neither is money. People are.

        Allowing money to count as a petition is limiting the freedom of those without money then.

  • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
    9·
    6 months ago

    Yes, this needs to be investigated. This was clearly a request for a quid pro quo arrangement. Pay me this and I’ll do that for you. Very illegal. In case there’s any doubt about that…

    In 1976, announcing the Supreme Court’s landmark Buckley v. Valeo decision, Chief Justice Warren Burger set this standard for corruption: “the reality & appearance of improper influence stemming from the dependence of candidates on large campaign contributions.”

    The current chief justice, John Roberts, had led an effort to tighten that broad language. Roberts, delivering the McCutcheon v. FEC ruling last year, defined corruption as “a contribution to a particular candidate in exchange for his agreeing to do a particular act within his official duties.”

    He was describing a quid pro quo – the donor’s money in explicit exchange for the politician’s official favor. It’s a felony.

    Just to be clear, John Roberts, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the USA defined corruption as “a contribution to a particular candidate in exchange for his agreeing to do a particular act within his official duties.”