US: Corruption Unchained - by Frank Vogl

The U.S. Department of Justice has announced that it will not seek a new trial of the former Governor of the state of Virginia, Robert McDonnell and his wife, Maureen McDonnell on charges of corruption.

A jury had found them both guilty in 2014 for receiving gifts of over $175,000 from a businessman. However, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a June 2016 ruling.

Government prosecutors, who could have decided to try the case again, announced on September 7th:

“After carefully considering the Supreme Court’s recent decision and the principles of federal prosecution, we have made the decision not to pursue the case further.”

As a result, prosecuting corruption by U.S. public officials has just become far more difficult.

Lobbyists and politicians can feel more confident that their myriad exchanges and relationships are less likely to lead to corruption prosecutions.

The United States, once an admirable leader on combatting political corruption, has now fallen into line with the lax standards of business-political relationships that pervade many other countries.

While left-wing Democratic politicians, notably Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, rail against corruption in U.S. politics, the mainstream Democratic Party officials at the helm of the Justice Department have accepted an increasingly narrow definition of political corruption.

The Supreme Court concluded that the McDonnells did nothing criminally wrong when Virginia businessman Jonnie Williams, Sr., gave them a gold Rolex watch, a Ferrari, $50,000 in financial aid for their beach house and a significant portion of the costs of their daughter’s wedding.

Newspaper readers may be forgiven for believing this is the kind of political corruption found in Third World or former Soviet countries – but it is perfectly legal in the United States today.

Read more: US: Corruption Unchained - The Globalist

(PART TWO ) Politics: If you believe the EU has political leadership problems look at the US - by Kingsley Guy

"My dueling columnist colleague Stephen L. Goldstein and I rarely agree on anything, but today we do: Real political leadership is next to non-existent in America, and the US faces a threat to its existence because of it.

Yet, democracies are based on the consent of the governed, which means all citizens bear responsibility for their nation's successes and failures. So as the New Year unfolds, perhaps Americans should take a look at the role they have played in creating the existential crisis in which the United States finds itself.

We could start by reflecting on an observation by the Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville, who toured the United States during the 1830s and wrote the classic political treatise, Democracy in America.

Unlike in Europe, Tocqueville found, people in the United States tended not to look to a central government to address problems. Instead, they banded together in communities and in civic organizations to work for a better quality of life, and this impressed Tocqueville.

In contrast, we live today in a society of crony capitalism, federal business bailouts, individuals clamoring for more and more government financial assistance, and communities and states calling on the federal government to pay the salaries even for teachers and police officers. As a result, the United States has accumulated a $16 trillion national debt and $120 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Here's a novel New Year's resolution for individuals, businesses, cities and states: "We pledge not to ask the federal government to do for us what we should be doing for ourselves."

Read more: Guy: Instead of leaders, we elected circus clowns - South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com

Corruption made in America: Electoral Campaigns - Proceed at your own Risk - by Luke Hiken

The election results are in from the latest pretense at democracy in the U.S. The outcome was as predictable as the sun rising. Nonetheless, it would be helpful to analyze the implications of this charade:
1) There is no meaningful distinction to be found between the mainstream leaders of the Democratic Party, and the majority of Republicans. They are one and the same for all intents and purposes. Unlike the Republocrats, Tea Party fanatics, xenophobic patriots and racist zealots constitute the “theoretical” leadership of and the spokespeople for the rhetoric of the Republican Party. With the backing of corporate billionaires such as the Koch Brothers, these arch right-wing forces set the agenda for political debate in the country. Progressive individuals, leftists and human rights activists have no significant voice whatsoever in the current electoral picture.

As Ted Rall states in his new book: "The Book of Obama: From Hope and Change to the Age of Revolt": “The election itself is largely inconsequential – regardless of who wins, Romney or Obama, the system will continue its inexorable move to the right in favor of corporate interests.” He concludes: “…the choice isn’t between Obama and Romney, but rather between ‘Obamney’ and taking to the streets to effect real change.”

2) Right-wing forces control the money in the U.S., and with the help of the Citizens United decision issued by the Bush Supreme Court, they can win virtually any race that is important to them. In California, the tobacco industry paid for a victory to prevent further taxation on its murderous product. The Scott Walker machine in Wisconsin defeated a nationwide campaign waged by what’s left of the union movement. Jared Huffman, a mainline Democratic Party hack handily defeated Norman Solomon, a candidate with true progressive credentials. The list goes on and on.

The sad reality is that a dumbed-down American public has lost the capacity to think critically. A well-financed propaganda campaign on television could probably persuade the American citizenry to elect Adolph Hitler over F.D.R., and given the fact that Republicans and mainstream Democrats have the ability to outspend the poor at the ratio of 20 to 1, the election results are a foregone conclusion.

Although the majority of people in Wisconsin voted for Scott Walker, they voted more so against the union pension benefits, and salaries of unionized public employees. It was not a matter of disrespecting the police, firemen and teachers, who constituted the majority of public workers impacted by Walker’s actions, rather the voters felt that the cops, firemen, and teachers did not need the generous retirement packages they were receiving at a time when the rest of the workers in the state were struggling to get by. Obama and the Democratic Party itself opted out of the entire debate.

Militant, unorganized resistance is a precursor to revolution, but it can never be a substitute. Without a political framework the current electorate is left with the Republocrats, or nothing. In such a context, railing against the state is meaningless. The progressive voters of Wisconsin are sitting in the same situation they were in before the election: they have built nothing outside of the framework of the Republican/Democratic parties that can assure victory when Scott comes up for reelection. They will have to start over with the same deadbeat political apparatus that got them into trouble in the first place.

It would be easy to believe that the American public is so stupid, vulnerable and apolitical that it doesn’t know where its own interest lies, and would vote for whatever self-destructive position the closest billionaire might demand. Alternatively, the public is correct that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans represent their interest at all, and another vehicle for leadership must be found and/or created. If we can’t decide who should lead us, we should at least be able to agree upon what goals we would like to accomplish. This will require significant changes, many of which cannot be effectuated in a voting booth.

Read more: Electoral Campaigns - Proceed at your own Risk | Scoop News

Europe warns US on political financing

(AP) A top European anti-corruption body wants the U.S. to increase transparency of political funding through outside groups that donate millions to support candidates, warning that they could be used to skirt long-established disclosure rules.

The Council of Europe's Group of States against Corruption — known as Greco and which counts the U.S. as a member — warns "soft money" political financing vehicles appear to be increasing in America.

Donors may give to the non-profits — which don't have to disclose their donors and can be feeders of funds into super PACs, independent groups that can raise unlimited amounts of money. The report did not mention super PACs by name, but it did focus on the 501(c) organizations.

The report made three recommendations to U.S. authorities, and Greco said it "invites" the U.S. to respond to those recommendations by the end of June 2013.

One recommended that U.S. authorities continue their push toward electronic filing of public disclosure of financial reports in Senate elections. Another urged a study of the effects of tie votes — or "deadlocks" — at the six-member Federal Election Commission.

One Creco official said that authors were concerned about the potential fallout from super PACs, which were born out of a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that stripped away prior restrictions on some election spending.

Greco is the anti-corruption unit of the 47-country Council of Europe, which is based in the eastern city of Strasbourg and aims to promote human rights and democratic principles.

EU-Digest

USA: Occupy Wall Street, Tea Party: United In Distrust

Members of Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party may disagree on many issues, but there's one thing that unites both groups: distrust in concentrated power.

At both Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party protests, you might hear similar opinions on the 2008 bank bailout, the federal deficit and government spending, and the influence of corporations and money on Congress. Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig says there's good reason to this visceral sense by both the left and the right that there is too much power in too few hands — whether it's the government or corporations.

For more: Occupy Wall Street, Tea Party: United In Distrust : NPR