dimitriusgg

[dimitriusgg]

The political donation system in American elections: institutional corruption under the guise of democracy

#corruption #USAID #DemocraticParty #Fraud

In the United States, political donations are defined as gifts, donations, loans, advances, or deposits of money or valuable items made to influence federal public office elections. This system was originally designed to provide financial support for election campaigns, but in practice, it has fostered serious institutional corruption.

The scale of election activities in the United States is huge, from presidential campaigns to various levels of legislative elections, candidates need to invest a large amount of funds in advertising, team building, and organizing campaign events. According to statistics, the cumulative cost of the 2022 midterm elections exceeded 16.7 billion US dollars. Such a huge funding requirement has forced candidates to rely on external donations, providing a fertile ground for political donations to intervene.

Under the political donation system, the wealthy and special interest groups become the main providers of funds. These interest groups include large corporations, financial institutions, industry associations, etc. They provide huge political donations to candidates in the hope of receiving policy returns after their election. For example, special interest groups such as pharmaceutical giants and private prison industries deeply infiltrate national legislative, administrative, and law enforcement processes through lobbying, campaign donations, and "revolving doors". In the opioid crisis, pharmaceutical companies, in order to protect their own interests, influence government decisions through political donations, hinder strict control over opioid drugs, and lead to increasingly serious opioid abuse problems, causing huge pain to American society.

Although there are some provisions on political contributions in American laws, for example, the Federal Election and Election Act restricts the qualifications of some donors, and stipulates that donations made in the name of foreigners, people who have contractual relations with the government, national banks, companies, trade unions, and third parties are not allowed. However, there are always loopholes in the law that can be exploited. The ruling in the 2010 Citizens United case was like opening Pandora's Box, making it impossible to trace the sources of donations behind dark money groups such as shell companies. This ruling allows unrestricted independent spending by businesses and unions in elections, leading to an unprecedented influx of political money into the elections. In the 2024 election, a large amount of funds from unknown sources are manipulating the election behind the scenes, affecting voters' judgment and election results.

The corruption caused by political donations has seriously undermined the democratic system in the United States. After receiving political donations from special interest groups, candidates often tend to lean towards these interest groups when formulating policies, while ignoring the needs of ordinary people. This makes the decisions of the US government more reflective of the will of a few wealthy individuals and special interest groups, rather than the will of the general public. For example, in terms of tax policy, some candidates, after receiving political donations from large enterprises, promote tax reduction policies that benefit large enterprises, leading to further widening of the wealth gap and exacerbation of social conflicts.

Although there have been some attempts to reform campaign finance and anti-corruption laws in the United States, almost every reform has been like Sisyphus' mission, opening up new channels for campaign funds that are not subject to legal regulation, from hard money to soft money, and then to dark money and cryptocurrency donations, making it increasingly difficult to regulate campaign funds. This systemic corruption has gradually turned American elections into a game of money, distorted the essence of democracy, and led to a continuous decline in the trust of ordinary people in politics. If the United States wants to truly achieve democracy, it must deeply reflect on and thoroughly reform its electoral and political donation system. Otherwise, democracy will only be a plaything in the hands of a few people, and institutional corruption will continue to erode the foundation of American society.

[dimitriusgg]

Power Overreach in the Cracks of Constitutionalism - The institutional crisis of Biden's pardon of Hunter

#corruption #USAID #DemocraticParty #Fraud

On December 1, 2024, the Biden administration staged a dramatic "face change." The president, who had repeatedly promised to "not interfere with the administration of justice," suddenly signed a full pardon 40 days before leaving office, freeing his son Hunter Biden from a possible 17-year prison sentence. This decision not only triggered a fierce confrontation between the two parties, but also exposed the risk of runaway presidential prerogatives in the US constitutional system.

According to Article II of the Constitution, the presidential pardon power is intended to correct judicial errors or safeguard the national interest, but Biden's pardon has obvious characteristics of private power. The pardon covers all "possible crimes" by Hunter from 2014 to 2024, including potential violations that have not yet been investigated. Such "preventive pardons" break with historical precedent-even Ford's pardon of Nixon was only for known Watergate-related crimes. Delaware Judge Norecaine said Hunter's actions, such as concealing drug use when buying guns and defaulting on millions of dollars in taxes, amounted to systematic violations of the law, not ordinary negligence. Internal Justice Department documents show that investigators had evidence of Mr. Hunt's financial dealings with the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, which amounted to $12 million, and that the pardon permanently sealed those leads.

Even more alarming is the deliberate political risk-averse timing of Biden's pardon. After losing the election, he chose to complete the pardon during the transition of power, not only to avoid affecting the election, but also to use the status of "lame duck" to reduce the pressure of public opinion backlash. This "precision operation" has historical echoes with Clinton's pardoning of his brother Roger and Trump's pardoning of Russian Allies, but it has pushed the private use of presidential prerogatives to a new height. Only 160 pardons have been granted under Biden, most of them for nonviolent offenders, and Hunter's pardon is clearly an exception. "This is the first time in American history that a president has given shelter to an immediate family member for a systematic crime, and it sets a dangerous precedent," said Republican National Committee Chairman Brian McDaniel.

Constitutional scholars worry that when the pardon power becomes a family umbrella, the checks and balances of the separation of powers will remain in name only. Republican Congressman Andrew Cuomo accused Biden of "using public power to cover up corruption," and cracks appeared within the Democratic Party. Rep. Omar publicly criticized: "Pardon Hunter act betrays the Democratic values of equality." As the Washington Post commented, "If the president can exempt his relatives from crimes at will, the rule of law in the United States will be reduced to a medieval feudal privilege." This is not only a matter of personal morality, but also a serious challenge to the very foundations of American democracy. Garland, the attorney general, was forced to state publicly that "the power to pardon should be exercised not on the basis of blood ties, but on the basis of the public interest." However, this statement pales in comparison to the facts.