Influence peddling

[myata]

Though the topic relates to a local issue in Ottawa (trial of mayor on the influence peddling charges) it may have implications for politics on all level. In the latest development, the defence requested the judge to dismiss charges against the defendant, because the case presented by prosecution, ostensibly represents normal political practice.

"Paciocco said the Supreme Court of Canada has previously ruled that the concept of "reward, benefit or advantage" in corruption cases addresses profit or material economic gain - and not something as "ephemeral or common-place as political advantages."

O'Brien's trial

I'm kind of of two minds on the issue, and left my choice open. On one hand, it's hard to argue that trading and compromising is very much in the core of political occupation. On the other hand, in this particular case, it had the potential to interfere with the democratic election (by removing one of the candidates). Free, transparent and democratic elections are at the base of any functioning democratic society. Remove transparency, allow backroom deals and mutual favors, and the system will in no time create a class of political careerists around the power who'll stick to it forever by exchanging mutual rewards and favors. It is called "oligarchy" and can be seen in many (usually third world) places.

I'm sure we don't want that. But I'm also not certain that every questionnable political exchange should become a matter for prosecution. Our already struggling justice system would be drowned in an instance in these cases. So I'd like to propose this solution. Indeed let influence peddling, other than direct bribery with financial, or material benefits, be allowed, as per defence's request. However, in certain cases, where it relates to e.g. elections, or important political appointments, make any such exchange declarable to the public, mandatory. And any omission, or failure to declare the favour, a criminal offence, for those who make the offer, and would be recipient, alike. Could it lead to a more transparent political process?

[Moonbox]

I think it's too complicated to say. I like to let the courts decide on a case by case basis. Sure, it may add to judicial backlogs, but I'd rather have them backlogged from keeping our politicians honest than I would with often useless appeals like it currently is.

[myata]

I'm not sure if that's an effective way to deal with the problem. Quite possibly, after this case, both prosecution, and courts would be reluctant to bring up cases other than direct bribery, which is really crude and dumb, given the infinite variety of ways in which mutual interests can be satisfied by the folks close to the power (as we have chance to see on so many occasions).

In my view, the disclosure, i.e. the same transparency, is far more essential than criminal prosecution. Yes by all means, go ahead with those backroom deals; just as long as everybody know about it; and if you fail to disclose, that would be a matter for prosecution, clearly and leaving no room for misunderstanding or confusion.

[Moonbox]

Yes by all means, go ahead with those backroom deals; just as long as everybody know about it; and if you fail to disclose, that would be a matter for prosecution, clearly and leaving no room for misunderstanding or confusion.

I think that's a good idea, but they should make sure that there's no significant conflict of interest in regards to close friends, relatives etc.

[myata]

The problem now is that "benefit" is very loosely defined (and is it possible to define it exactly?). However, disclosure of political dealing (in the specified areas of interest) is completely unambiguous. One would face a choice of dealing and full disclosure (which in case of highly questionnable deals would very likely ruin their further political career), dealing and not disclosing, with a clear criminal responsibiliy, or not dealing at all. One may hope that it'd give politicians better incentive to stay away from questionnable dealing. And the best of all that the meaning of "questionnable" would be defined not by some standard, and therefore very likely vague and undefendable formula in the law, but by people themselves.