Bribery - What's so wrong about it?

[QuasiMondo]

Over the months that I've been reading this forum, I've seen threads that question the motivations behind the laws making various crimes illegal. Prostitution, perjury, and even statutory rape based on the age of consent were all called into question, the most common argument raised in questioning whether these crimes are indeed crimes usually falls into to two arguments:
1. They're not physical crimes like murder, assault, or rape, so why should they face a harsh penalty?
2. It's between consenting adults, so why should it be illegal?

I didn't think much about these crimes until I read an article about the bribery trial of Tony Rezko, a Chicago fundraiser who controlled the Illinois Health Planning Facilities board. Rezko is charged with accepting a $1.5M bribe to secure his approval to build a hospital.

So why is the government putting Rezko on trial for helping to build a hospital? With our faltering health care system, isn't more hospitals what we need? Some will say that, "it's wrong to try to buy a politician's vote!" but isn't that what politicians do with us when they announce how much money they've raised for their campaigns? Some will even argue that bribes and 'pay-to-play' tactics are what takes the power away from the people and puts it into the hands of special interests. But then again, with most people often resorting to a NIMBY mentality (even if they don't see that they have), would 'the people' have approved the construction of this hospital? How many other vital projects, from power plants to rehabilitation centers, to recreational facilities have been doomed by folks who want it anywhere but here?

Sometimes a little bit of grease is needed to get the job done, and if you can't get it done through protests, committees, and other seemingly legitimate ways, why not pay for services rendered?

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by QuasiMondo

Sometimes a little bit of grease is needed to get the job done, and if you can't get it done through protests, committees, and other seemingly legitimate ways, why not pay for services rendered?

As you travel the world you'll see exactly that. Grease money seems to get things accomplished that would have not ever gotten done.

Basically the question to me isn't a political one but a philosophical or moral one.

Is the needs of the one more important than the needs of the many?

For some it's a matter of the inablity to live with one's self. My parents grew up where this kind of lifestyle was how things got done. When they emmigrated to the US, they found that they would not tolerate such behavior in their lives.

Fast forward 20 years later, they had an opportunity to help hundreds if not thousands by helping building a hospital and a water desalination plant. They declined and neither were built.

I only learned of the story from my parents recently. They felt the moral fibers of their very selves were at stake and couldn't allow themselves to participate in what they considered graft and corruption.

When they told me this, I had to think as to what I would have done. Would I help the thousands? Or would my own ego stand in the way?

For me, the answer would have been different. I would have taken the money. I would not feel good about taking the bribe, and to assuage my guilt I would have just donated the money anonymously to some charity or church. It would be the way I could help the maximum amount of people without compromising myself since I did not benefit from the monies in anyway.

I know of other situations to use, but will let others contribute tot he discussion first.

[dksuddeth]

Rezko is charged with accepting a $1.5M bribe to secure his approval to build a hospital.

So why is the government putting Rezko on trial for helping to build a hospital? With our faltering health care system, isn't more hospitals what we need?

how many OTHER companies who wanted to build that hospital lost the bid to build it cheaper because someone with more money paid off a politician to secure the contract? Of those companies that could build it cheaper, how much MORE money for public funds will now have to be paid by the local taxpayers to support building this hospital? How much MORE money can rezko expect to make off of this?

The ends never justifies the means, so they say.

[Ustwo]

'So, yous likes to build a hospital in my district eh? Did yous knows I was thinking of building a new house in Florida, its kinda expensive if you gets my drift.'

This shit goes on, but the more of them in jail the better.

The government's star witness in the corruption trial of Antoin "Tony" Rezko took the stand Tuesday and in just 48 minutes laid out a stunning personal tale of bribery, treachery, rampant drug abuse and a precipitous fall from grace.

In a brief but vivid prologue to what is expected to be days of testimony, one-time political insider Stuart Levine said he had illegally greased contracts to sell tires to the city's Streets and Sanitation Department and supply school buses to the Chicago Board of Education and even health insurance to members of a postal workers union.

I don't' know how anyone would think this sort of thing is 'good' because something gets done. Its not done because of it, its done in spite of it.

[QuasiMondo]

Of course, the way I see it, money = power. Politics = power. Call me loco, but I think it's folly keep the two separated. It's like splitting the Red Sea. While we may lement the unyielding influence of special instrests, which most politicians are beholden to, I feel that instead of lamenting such a state of politics on our news shows and radio programs, we should fight fire with fire.

Does such a tactic pose a risk of getting out of control? It does, but think about the number of people who stage protests against whatever government policy is out there. Yelling, and shoutng, and chanting, and beating drums, and holding signs may fall on the deaf ears of your elected officials, but if you pool your money together in a sizeable amount, minds can change.

(BTW, this probably should be in Philosophy, now that I think about it)

[Yakk]

So you hire your lawyer to write up your prenuptual agreement. It is a reasonably complex document.

Your lawyer goes to your cousin, and says "Give me 100,000$, and I'll slip some provisions into the prenup that will allow you to fleece those two suckers."

Your cousin accepts.

Under the advice of your lawyer, you sign the prenup. Then they clean you out.

The trick here is that the politician has influence and control over things placed in trust. As does the beaurocrat. They do not "own" the public purse: they control it in trust for the people.

Just like your lawyer didn't own your assets. But because she had influence over the legal status of them, if he chose to he could screw you in exchange for consideration.

But they can fill their pockets by accepting bribes to redirect public money.

[robot_parade]

Wow. QuasiMondo, I really think you're missing the point. Bribery is *never* a good thing - it always hurts some one, one way or another. Consider some of the more common bribery scenarios:

o Private individual(s) or company bribes public servant(s) so that public servant(s) throw a government contract their way. This is (I believe) what Tony Rezko was accused of doing. The public servants *job* is to select the best people or company to fulfil the contract. If someone bribes their way to getting a contract, then the public is being defrauded - at the least, they're paying too much for the contract. Also, and honest company, who would have done a better job, or done the same job cheaper, looses business.

o A company or individual(s) bribe a public official to not enforce some law or regulation. Slipping the fire marshall some cash to ignore a fire hazard, or a cop to forget about a speeding ticket. Those laws and regulations are in place for a reason. Someone is now being put in danger, or some business is put at a competetive disadvantage.

o A public servant demands a bribe to do their job. This case is slightly more subtle, but again, society is harmed - the pubic servant didn't create any value for the money he took. He's obstructing the proper functions of government, and preventing access to government services to those who can afford his bribe.

Corruption can literally destroy a country. Read up on countries in South America and Africa where corruption is rampant - a countries with vast natural resources and lots of wealth, but most of the people are in a constant state of poverty, and the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few. Some people blame unregulated capitalism, but corruption is at least as much to blame in these countries.

*That's* why bribery is illegal and immoral - because it hurts individuals and society as a whole. Just like murder, robbery, organized crime, rape, etc.

Also, apparently I agree with Ustwo about something.

Originally Posted by keanu

Woah.

:-)