[hnruss]

In the states that I have lived, the voter information pamphlet lists who supports and opposes every initiative. Every time that a new regulation on the ballot would benefit the public at the expense of business, it’s always the same: on one side are Republicans and some multi-national corporations, the other side are Democrats and public-interest groups (environmentalists, etc).

I don’t think that public-interest groups have as much money for backroom deals as multi-national corporations. So that’s why I’m pretty sure of it.

[refurb]

Yet democrats are taking back room bribes to approve new construction. Huh!

The regulation enables the corruption.

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/san-francisco/sf-publi...

[hnruss]

I’d bet that the dollar amounts involved where appointed officials corruptly use regulation to solicit bribes in the U.S. is orders of magnitude smaller than the amounts involved in “campaign donations” to elected officials to prevent and remove regulations.

The amount in question in that article is $5,000.

For comparison, the amount in question here is $34,000:

https://theintercept.com/2020/10/12/alaska-republican-senato...

[paulryanrogers]

Would regulation with transparency be the best of both? Because it seems tax law changes so often and violating it so trivial I doubt it'd be better.

IMO those in charge should be forced to drink/breath from whichever area tested most polluted on a regular basis, and as a public event. Once they can no longer hide or pass on the consequences they should take the problems more seriously.