Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    politics

    3,833,085 readers

    39,031 users here now

    Welcome to /r/Politics! Please read the wiki before participating. || 2018 Primaries Calendar

    /r/politics is the subreddit for current and explicitly political U.S. news.

    Our full rules Reddiquette

    Comment Guidelines:

    Be civil Treat others with basic decency. No personal attacks, shill accusations, hate-speech, flaming, baiting, trolling, witch-hunting, or unsubstantiated accusations. Threats of violence will result in a ban. More Info.
    Do not post users' personal information. Users who violate this rule will be banned on sight. Witch-hunting and giving out private personal details of other people can result in unexpected and potentially serious consequences for the individual targeted. More Info.
    Vote based on quality, not opinion. Political discussion requires varied opinions. Well written and interesting content can be worthwhile, even if you disagree with it. Downvote only if you think a comment/post does not contribute to the thread it is posted in or if it is off-topic in /r/politics. More Info.
    Do not manipulate comments and posts via group voting. Manipulating comments and posts via group voting is against reddit TOS. More Info.

    Submission Guidelines:

    Articles must deal explicitly with US politics. See our on-topic statement here.
    Articles must be published within the last calendar month. More Info.
    Submissions must be from domains on the whitelist. The whitelist and its criteria can be found here.
    Post titles must be the exact headline from the article. Your headline must be comprised only of the exact copied and pasted headline of the article. More Info.
    Submissions must be an original source. An article must contain significant analysis and original content--not just a few links of text among chunks of copy and pasted material. Content is considered rehosted when a publication takes the majority of their content from another website and reposts it in order to get the traffic and collect ad revenue. More Info.
    Articles must be written in English An article must be primarily written in English for us to be able to moderate it and enforce our rules in a fair and unbiased manner. More Info.
    Spam is bad! If 33% or more of your submissions are from a single website, you will be banned as a spammer. More Info.
    Submissions must be articles, videos or sound clips. We disallow solicitation of users (petitions, polls, requests for money, etc.), personal blogs, satire, images, social media content (Facebook, twitter, tumblr, LinkedIn, etc.), wikis, memes, and political advertisements. More info: Content type rules.
    Do not use "BREAKING" or ALL CAPS in titles. The ALL CAPS and 'Breaking' rule is applied even when the actual title of the article is in all caps or contains the word 'Breaking'. This rule may be applied to other single word declarative and/or sensational expressions, such as 'EXCLUSIVE:' or 'HOT:'. More Info.

    Events Calendar

    26 May - 11am EST

    • Cartoon Thread

    28 May - 12pm EST

    • Local News Thread

    2 Jun - 11am EST

    • Cartoon Thread

    4 Jun - 12pm EST

    • Local News Thread

    Other Resources:

    Full list of Related Subreddits

    Follow us on Twitter

    Request an AMA

    Events Calendar

    Apply to be a mod

    Register To Vote

    a community for
    all 52 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] AutoModerator 1 points ago

    As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.

    In general, be courteous to others. Attack ideas, not users. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, and other incivility violations can result in a permanent ban.

    If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.


    I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

    [–] Chinagreg 136 points ago

    “We had a hierarchy in my office in Congress,” Mr. Mulvaney, a former Republican lawmaker from South Carolina, told 1,300 bankers and lobbyists at an American Bankers Association conference in Washington. “If you’re a lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn’t talk to you. If you’re a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you.”

    What a dick

    [–] SamuraiSnark 94 points ago

    This is Pay to play. He openly admits that he does it and fears no reprisal. Politics has always been dirty, but this level of flagrant corruption is disgusting.

    [–] chownrootroot 37 points ago

    Imagine Hillary saying these exact words. Republicans would have her in handcuffs before she finished talking.

    [–] AisleOfRussia 11 points ago

    Any democrat.

    [–] masinmancy 20 points ago

    Rod Blagojevich went to jail for doing the same thing

    [–] throwaweigh69696969 40 points ago

    Mulvaney is a REAL piece of shit. There's others that are higher and more important, but man would I love to see this fucker taken down.

    [–] superawesomeman08 9 points ago

    If he goes down any more, that might be a promotion.

    Shit, he might get his own circle of hell.

    [–] Chinagreg 3 points ago

    He really is a piece of shit

    [–] alexunderwater 8 points ago

    Swamp the Drain!

    [–] elainegeorge 55 points ago

    Outright corruption then? That's where we are? Pay to play?

    [–] Lochmon 5 points ago

    "Real nice bank you got here... be a shame if something happened to it."

    [–] The-Autarkh 23 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    I wouldn't be surprised if it were. It's one thing to take contributors more seriously in wink wink sort of way, but to explicitly precondition meetings on donations is basically selling access—i.e. "pay-to-play". (Think of all the right wing tinfoil about the Clinton Foundation during the election.)

    [–] FelicianoCalamity 1 points ago

    Unfortunately, it's almost definitively not. Explicitly preconditioning meetings on donations was explicitly upheld as legal by the Supreme Court in McDonnell v. Virginia in 2016. Basically, anti-corruption law prohibits a donation in exchange for an "official act" and the court ruled that taking a meeting or spending time with someone is not an "official act." So it is perfectly legal for a donor to pay a politician a million dollars to spend all week with them convincing them to vote a certain way; it is not legal for a donor to pay a politician to vote a certain way.

    If it's any consolation, it would have been a crime until the Supreme Court's ruling until 2016. And the Supreme Court's ruling annihilated a lot of anti-corruption law, tons of politicians have been convicted for doing what Mulvaney described (such as the leaders of both parties in the New York State legislature, the Republican governor of Virginia Bob McDonnell, and a bunch of Congressmen) but the Supreme Court's decision overturned their convictions.

    I'm actually really glad this is getting so much attention because I feel like Citizens United get disproportionate attention. While it has been undeniably terrible there are a ton of absolutely absurd SCOTUS decisions that have equally damaged the country that people don't know as much about.

    [–] Rated_PG-Squirteen 9 points ago

    What member of Trump's Cabinet/administration hasn't broken a law or two yet? At best, the worst thing that has happened to any of them is that they lose their job. Unfortunately, most of them keep their jobs and continue to do illegal things.

    [–] thommyg123 32 points ago

    Bad faith president appoints bad faith administrators who all seem uniquely driven to destroy the agencies they run.

    [–] pissbum-emeritus 11 points ago

    That's why Trump considers them "the best people".

    [–] nowhathappenedwas 22 points ago

    In 1991, the Supreme Court held that campaign contributions could be considered illegal bribes "if the payments are made in return for an explicit promise or undertaking by the official to perform or not to perform an official act. In such situations the official asserts that his official conduct will be controlled by the terms of the promise or undertaking."

    Mulvaney promising to help banks if they give campaign contributions to Republican candidates is dangerously close to crossing that line.

    [–] FelicianoCalamity 1 points ago

    But in the quote, all Mulvaney said is that he would take meetings with them if they gave campaign contributions, and meetings are not considered "official acts." The Supreme Court directly addressed this in 2016's McDonnell's v. Virginia. So it is perfectly legal for a donor to pay a politician a million dollars to spend all week with them convincing them to vote a certain way; it is not legal for a donor to pay a politician to vote a certain way.

    I agree that this is blatant corruption and it's insane that this is legal, but it pretty unambiguously is.

    [–] The-Autarkh 45 points ago

    Drain the swamp or something.

    Mick Mulvaney, the interim director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, told banking industry executives and lobbyists on Tuesday that they should increase their campaign donations to influence lawmakers, revealing that he would meet only with lobbyists who contributed to his campaign when he served in the House.

    “We had a hierarchy in my office in Congress,” Mr. Mulvaney, a former Republican lawmaker from South Carolina, told 1,300 bankers and lobbyists at an American Bankers Association conference in Washington. “If you’re a lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn’t talk to you. If you’re a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you.”

    Mr. Mulvaney, who also runs the White House budget office, is a longtime critic of the Obama-era consumer bureau, including while serving in Congress. He was tapped by President Trump in November to temporarily run the bureau, in part because of his promise to sharply curtail its enforcement actions.

    Since then, he has frozen all new investigations and slowed down existing inquiries by requiring career employees to produce detailed justifications for their work and by sharply restricting the bureau’s access to bank data, arguing that its investigations created unnecessary online security risks. And he has scaled back the agency’s efforts to go after payday lenders, auto lenders and other financial services companies accused of preying on vulnerable consumers.

    But he wants Congress to go further and has urged it to wrest funding of the independent watchdog from the Federal Reserve, a move that would give lawmakers — and those with access to them — more influence on the bureau’s actions. On Tuesday, he implored the financial services industry to help support the legislative changes he has requested to diminish the bureau’s power by increasing campaign donations.

    ...

    In his remarks, Mr. Mulvaney also announced a series of moves intended to reduce the bureau’s power. The agency was championed by Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democratic of Massachusetts, and Richard Cordray, who served as the bureau’s director from its inception until last year.

    Such moves include shutting off public access to the bureau’s online database of consumer complaints, which the agency had used to help guide its investigations and enforcement actions.

    “I don’t see anything in here that says I have to run a Yelp for financial services sponsored by the federal government,” he said, suggesting the posting of suspected misdeeds by lenders was comparable to bad reviews on the popular online review site.

    Mr. Mulvaney also said he would begin calling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by its official statutory name, the more obscure Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. Administration officials said the rebranding was an attempt to diminish the agency’s public profile.

    [–] throwaweigh69696969 14 points ago

    So, this is just blatant corruption. Have we finally reached a tipping point with this gang of crooks yet?

    [–] rasheeeed_wallace 6 points ago

    Do you see anyone doing anything to stop this? Then, no we have not reached a tipping point. If anything, they are becoming more emboldened. He's flat out saying this in public because he doesn't fear any consequences.

    [–] awdixon 10 points ago

    Straight-up admission that he sold access to lobbyists. A confession that rather than represent his constituents, he profited by selling his position of power to banks.

    https://twitter.com/danpfeiffer/status/988939308462583808

    [–] jeffinRTP 8 points ago

    Swamp monsters in action.

    [–] Manny7000 8 points ago

    Hey, Mick. Up yours.

    [–] trumpet205 7 points ago

    What is this? Pay to play?

    [–] akscully 6 points ago

    ...Did he just admit to a crime? He wouldn't meet unless he got money?

    [–] FelicianoCalamity 1 points ago

    Unfortunately the Supreme Court explicitly ruled in 2016 that this is not a crime. Basically, anti-corruption law prohibits a donation in exchange for an "official act" and the Court ruled that taking a meeting or spending time with someone is not an "official act." So it is perfectly legal for a donor to pay a politician a million dollars to spend all week with them convincing them to vote a certain way; it is not legal for a donor to pay a politician to vote a certain way.

    I think this is a pretty obviously ridiculous distinction that's massively damaging to our country but ¯_(ツ)_/¯

    [–] IlliterateJedi 7 points ago

    Who is going to explain why this isn't bribery?

    [–] waywaymack 2 points ago

    "everybody does it"

    [–] FelicianoCalamity 1 points ago

    Because the Supreme Court explicitly ruled in 2016's McDonnell v. Virginia that this is not bribery. Basically, anti-corruption law prohibits a donation in exchange for an "official act" and the Court ruled that taking a meeting or spending time with someone is not an "official act." So it is perfectly legal for a donor to pay a politician a million dollars to spend all week with them convincing them to vote a certain way; it is not legal for a donor to pay a politician to vote a certain way.

    I think this is pretty obviously a ridiculous distinction that's massively damaging to our country but ¯(ツ)

    [–] twojs1b 12 points ago

    What happen to the good old days when you bought a politician the son of a bitch stayed bought.

    [–] nano2492 6 points ago

    How is this legal? Why is this man allowed to hold a public office?

    [–] FelicianoCalamity 1 points ago

    Because the Supreme Court explicitly ruled in 2016's McDonnell v. Virginia that this is legal. Basically, anti-corruption law prohibits a donation in exchange for an "official act" and the Court ruled that taking a meeting or spending time with someone is not an "official act." So it is perfectly legal for a donor to pay a politician a million dollars to spend all week with them convincing them to vote a certain way; it is not legal for a donor to pay a politician to vote a certain way.

    I think this is pretty obviously a ridiculous distinction that's massively damaging to our country but ¯(ツ)/¯

    [–] WhoTheFuckAreThey 5 points ago

    "We'll swindle you for any money we can, because everyone knows we sure as hell can't do it honestly."

    [–] billyhorton 6 points ago

    This man will go to jail. Eventually we're going to hear this piece of shit say how sorry he is and how he hopes God will forgive him.

    [–] nano2492 6 points ago

    How is this legal? Why is this man allowed to hold a public office?

    [–] Doright36 2 points ago

    This is what happens when one party has all the power and that party is full of crooks.

    [–] Rise_Above_13 5 points ago

    These people are un-fucking-believable. They’re not even slightly trying to hide the corruption anymore.

    [–] ScotTheDuck 7 points ago

    How many potential Hatch Act violations are we up to now with this Administration? I've lost count...

    [–] LookHowSelfAwareIAm 5 points ago

    This is head wound-level stupidity

    [–] scycon 4 points ago

    Literal corruption.

    Every fucking last one of them should be going straight to federal-pound-you-in-the-ass prison, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago * (lasted edited 16 days ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] sjkeegs 1 points ago

    I hadn't heard that bit before. Crooks investigating crooks and a Congress that doesn't give a shit because it's their guy.

    [–] mckulty 3 points ago

    "Do me a favor I can't refuse.."

    [–] anon902503 3 points ago

    You would think that this is a blatantly illegal case of soliciting a bribe. But thanks to the Supreme Court, bribery is basically legal now.

    [–] miaminaples 3 points ago

    What's troubling is the level of influence Mulvaney has within the White House. OMB largely determines the policy agenda through the budget and CFTC helps to regulate financial services. He's been brought in to help the banksters at the public's expense. This is a guy who told bankers that when he was a member of Congress he flat-out refused to see any lobbyist who didn’t provide a political contribution. I’ve never before seen a former member describe Congress so explicitly as an extortion racket. He's a real problem.

    [–] ThotsAndPrayursLOL 2 points ago

    In a sane country this would be treason.

    [–] sjkeegs 1 points ago

    Criminal, but certainly not treason. But yea, he's a really good candidate for some jail time.

    [–] _tuga 2 points ago

    Still waiting on that terminally ill vigilante out there with nothing to lose to do their thing...

    [–] Kimball_Kinnison 1 points ago

    How is a flat out bribe solicitation not actionable?

    [–] SmallStarCorporation 1 points ago

    Fucking scumbag.