RE: Lobbying =/= Corruption

[Charudatt <charu@iced.com>]

	----------
	Sanjeev Sabhlok[SMTP:sabhlok@almaak.usc.edu] wrote

	>A) Lobbying =/= Corruption:

	>* What is called corruption by some Indians, about the USA, is
nothing but
	>lobbying or the persuasion of their viewpoint to policymakers
by organized
	>groups of citizens.

	So are you saying if Harshad Mehta's payoff to the then PM [or
pick your favorite big payoff scandal] were called "lobbying" or
"campaign contributions" then it would not constitute corruption?


	>Lobbying and
	>corruption are COMPLETELY different. It is a logical fallacy
again, to
	>compare the embezzlement of funds meant for a school building
in an Indian
	>village with money spent by firms and nations to lobby their
views among
	>powerful decision-makers.

	Let's take an example that is well documented [The Keating 5]: 

	Charles Keating controls the bank Lincoln S&L. He steals about a
billion dollars. Federal Bank regulators investigate and he pays 4
senators about $1M each [as "campaign contributions"] to tell the
regulators to back off.

	Question: Did Keating bribe the senators?

	Your earlier assertions would seem to indicate that you'd say
no. In that case we have a way of eliminating bribery in one stroke- any
payment to politicians or officials can be termed "lobbying" or as
formulated by one brilliant Indian politician named Antulay a "donation
to a trust", and we won't have to wait for the mythical asymptotic decay
of this 

	Note that this lobbying is done in public. The press debates the
same
	issues that are being lobbyied about. These are open things.
Even the
	funds spent on lobbying are publicly audited and available for
scrutiny. 

	A murder committed in broad daylight is still a murder, likewise
the fact that bribery is open, as in campaign contributions, does not
mean that it is not bribery.


	>Even assuming that the US is throughly and fully corrupt at the
top, let
	>us look at facts to see its effects: 

	>* The average US citizen is at least 20 times wealthier than an
Indian. 

	. . .
	Once again your argument has the fallacy of
	post hoc, ergo propter hoc, "After this, therefore because of
this."

	You're saying: The average US citizen is at least 20 times
wealthier than an Indian this proves there is no corruption.

	>* The average school child in the USA has an excellent school
with
	>computers and things. The average child in India has not even a
roof over
	>the school building.

	This is a non-sequitur.
	It doesn't prove or disprove anything about anything.

	>In other words, lobbying and policy discussion at the top, even
if
	>"tainted" by "corruption" (which I disputed above) does not
have any
	>adverse consequences for the common man. That is because these
are two
	>different things.
	
	W.r.t. the Keating 5 example- the consequence to the common man
was that public funds were used to pay back depositors the billion
dollars robbed onder protection bought by lobbying.

	>Finally, a technical issue: I do think that this free-flowing
debate is
	>now getting too verbose.  Let us revert back to the actual
wording of the
	>manifesto. If there is any other discussion on corruption,
perhaps it
	>should be supported by a specific para that the writer wishes
to be
	>incorporated in the manifesto.

	Er, um, Sanjeev, I think you started it by [a] posting this
article, [b] offering your opinions on it. And in another case by making
the unsubstantiated statement of the flavor "socialism is the root of
all evil"




----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a posting to India_Policy Discussion list: india_policy@cine.net
Rules, Procedures, Archives:     http://www.indiaconsult.com/indiapolicy/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------