AsburySkinsFan Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 OK, so the idea that nepotism exists is nothing new in the world of politics, heck as I said on my facebook entry for this article it seems as if Congress see nepotism and embracing the conflicts of interest as part of their job descriptions. I guess my main question is this, if we require judges to recuse themselves from presiding over cases where there is a conflict of interest in the case (because their judgment may well be compromised) then why don't we require the same from our legislators? It seems that Congress has done more harm and created more wasteful spending and created more corruption by not having a recusal mandate, and yet we accept this as the norm. I cite the article below more as a case study rather than the subject of debate. WP: Capitol Assets:Some legislators send millions to groups connected to their relativeshttp://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/capitol-assets-some-legislators-send-millions-to-groups-connected-to-their-relatives/2012/01/10/gIQAyrzdxQ_story.html Some members of Congress send tax dollars to companies, colleges and community groups where their spouses, children and parents work as salaried employees, lobbyists or board members, according to an examination of federal disclosure forms and local public records by The Washington Post. A U.S. senator from South Dakota helped add millions to a Pentagon program his wife evaluated as a contract employee. A Washington congressman boosted the budget of an environmental group that his son ran as executive director. A Texas congresswoman guided millions to a university where her husband served as a vice president. Those three members are among 16 who have taken actions that aided entities connected to their immediate families. The findings stem from an examination by The Post of all 535 members of the House and Senate, comparing their financial disclosure forms with thousands of public records. The examination uncovered a broad range of connections between the public and private lives of the nation’s lawmakers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Heck, IMO, it's become a traditional method of laundering bribes: Don't bribe the Congressman. Bribe somebody in his family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 8, 2012 Author Share Posted February 8, 2012 Heck, IMO, it's become a traditional method of laundering bribes: Don't bribe the Congressman. Bribe somebody in his family. Exactly, so why is it that we don't require Congresspersons/Senators to recuse themselves from legislation (sponsoring, writing, promoting, and voting for) where there are conflicts of interest? If judges presided over cases where there were known or discovered conflicts of interest the defense would file an appeal or the ruling would be tossed out. So, the folks who rule (not reign) over the law have to be free from conflicts of interest yet the folks who write the law don't? Seems to me that's probably the biggest single problem in politics today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Exactly, so why is it that we don't require Congresspersons/Senators to recuse themselves from legislation (sponsoring, writing, promoting, and voting for) where there are conflicts of interest? If judges presided over cases where there were known or discovered conflicts of interest the defense would file an appeal or the ruling would be tossed out. So, the folks who rule (not reign) over the law have to be free from conflicts of interest yet the folks who write the law don't? Seems to me that's probably the biggest single problem in politics today. One reason is because there is a well-established means of getting rid of politicians - at the ballot box. Besides, politicians aren't supposed to be impartial. They are supposed to represent their constituents. Judges can't be gotten rid of, and they are supposed to be impartial. Recusal is much more vital for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 If I were to redesign congress, I'd make it a sequestered position that has no outside contact with any business relationships in family or out while in office. This would not only reduce corruption, but also ensure that only the most passionate and legitimate people would pursue a seat in congress having to sacrifice for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 8, 2012 Author Share Posted February 8, 2012 One reason is because there is a well-established means of getting rid of politicians - at the ballot box. Besides, politicians aren't supposed to be impartial. They are supposed to represent their constituents.Judges can't be gotten rid of, and they are supposed to be impartial. Recusal is much more vital for them. I get that, truly I do, and I am all for representing their constituents, but they aren't representing their constituents so much as they are representing the few that will serve them, and that is the basis of corruption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 If I were to redesign congress, I'd make it a sequestered position that has no outside contact with any business relationships in family or out while in office. But Corporations are people too!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 If I were to redesign congress, I'd make it a sequestered position that has no outside contact with any business relationships in family or out while in office.This would not only reduce corruption, but also ensure that only the most passionate and legitimate people would pursue a seat in congress having to sacrifice for it. It might also ensure that Congress is nothing but 99 percent multimillionaire dilettantes. :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 8, 2012 Author Share Posted February 8, 2012 It might also ensure that Congress is nothing but 99 percent multimillionaire dilettantes. :whoknows: How is that a change? Seriously though, Predicto, you mentioned how we get rid of politicians, but really how often do we see wholesale change over in Congress and the Senate? Maybe in redistricting years, but most times they stay for a long time, and by that point they've managed to siphon off who knows how much money through direct funding and through favorable legislation to the people who are directly funding them or are promising them golden parachutes when they leave office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 It might also ensure that Congress is nothing but 99 percent multimillionaire dilettantes. :whoknows: How so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.