Accountability vs Transparency: How the EU deals with corruption in government vs how the US doesn't

[Innula Zenovka]

THE REST OF THE WORLD REPORT

In any other advanced democracy, a 927-page disclosure showing $1.4 billion in earnings from industries the president regulates would have triggered an investigation. In America, it triggered a press release.

www.restoftheworldreport.com

 

[Beebo Brink]

The turmoil we're experiencing isn't really due to Trump himself, it's due to the political/societal context we've built for decades. Trump is a symptom, an opportunistic illness that inevitably attacks when conditions are ripe.

We can't just legislate Trump and his corruption away. There are plenty of existing laws and systems that would have stopped Trump in his tracks years ago; they simply weren't enforced by the Republican party when it was in power. Congress had the power to remove him from office and they abdicated that responsibility. Even worse, SCOTUS has flouted historic legal precedents and gone rogue. They conservative justices have an agenda, and they are blatantly twisting interpretation of the law to fit their goals.

Rule of law only exists when people agree to abide by it. It is fundamentally a self-governing system; without the agreement of individuals to believe in it and follow the rules, it has no inherent authority to compel compliance.

Without rule of law, democracy fails. I'm not sure how -- even under the best scenario for the 2026 midterms -- we return to a law-abiding society that is willing to enforce our rules. Once people stop believing in rule of law -- as the Republicans have done en masse -- how do you convince them to voluntarily re-enter into that societal agreement?

Right-wing conservatives have opted out of our system because it was getting far too close to leveling the playing field. It no longer promised an inherent advantage for White Christian Men (and their dependents). They would rather have a fascist state than a democracy, so our liberal rallying cry that democracy is a stake doesn't sway them; quite the contrary.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

Building on what Beebo said, Trump's support is basically just the literal manifestation of what the Onion correctly predicted after Obama's relection:

 

[Innula Zenovka]

The turmoil we're experiencing isn't really due to Trump himself, it's due to the political/societal context we've built for decades. Trump is a symptom, an opportunistic illness that inevitably attacks when conditions are ripe.

We can't just legislate Trump and his corruption away. There are plenty of existing laws and systems that would have stopped Trump in his tracks years ago; they simply weren't enforced by the Republican party when it was in power. Congress had the power to remove him from office and they abdicated that responsibility. Even worse, SCOTUS has flouted historic legal precedents and gone rogue. They conservative justices have an agenda, and they are blatantly twisting interpretation of the law to fit their goals.

Rule of law only exists when people agree to abide by it. It is fundamentally a self-governing system; without the agreement of individuals to believe in it and follow the rules, it has no inherent authority to compel compliance.

Without rule of law, democracy fails. I'm not sure how -- even under the best scenario for the 2026 midterms -- we return to a law-abiding society that is willing to enforce our rules. Once people stop believing in rule of law -- as the Republicans have done en masse -- how do you convince them to voluntarily re-enter into that societal agreement?

Right-wing conservatives have opted out of our system because it was getting far too close to leveling the playing field. It no longer promised an inherent advantage for White Christian Men (and their dependents). They would rather have a fascist state than a democracy, so our liberal rallying cry that democracy is a stake doesn't sway them; quite the contrary.

According to the article, though, there's no law that says the president may not use his office to enrich himself. Is that not the case?

The Trump Organization maintains that all investment accounts are managed by third-party financial institutions through automated technology, and that neither Trump, his family, nor the Trump Organization plays any role in investment decisions. The disclosure reflects that position.

No federal law prohibits the president of the United States from holding stocks in companies regulated or contracted by his own administration. No federal law prohibits the president from licensing his name to cryptocurrency ventures whose value rises with his own regulatory decisions. No federal law required that the $250,000 statue be refused. The disclosure form exists precisely because these things are permitted — to ensure that the public knows they are occurring.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

According to the article, though, there's no law that says the president may not use his office to enrich himself. Is that not the case?

See the emoluments clause of the Constitution. All the way up until Trump, it was understood that this was a broad ban on such activities. BUT NOW, in a post Trump world, this has been totally ignored. Obviously, it would be ideal if a new Federal law or new Amendment went into a lot more detail about anti corruption enforcement. And obviously the Constitution doesn't forbid stock trading directly since that wasn't something the founders anticipated.

EDIT: Wanted to add that the emoluments clause USED to be taken very seriously. They made Jimmy Carter place his peanut farm in a blind trust so he wouldn't be bias because of that.... This was a normal thing until Trump came and basically just said "fuck that."