Bribery Quotes

Hanna, managing William McKinley’s Presidential Campaign against William Jennings Bryan, outspent is opponents by a factor of ten to one. Few understood that at the time or the profound effect that money could play in national politics. Hanna was a political strategist far ahead of his time.

In 1862 after a Sioux uprising, a U. S. military commission condemned 303 Indians to death. The President personally reviewed the records of each case and pardoned most. On December 26, 1862 the largest public execution in American history took place with 38 Indians hanged. Lincoln's decision to commute most of the sentences was not politically popular and in the 1864 election the Republican vote margin in Minnesota was smaller than before. Minnesota Senator Alexander Ramsey told Lincoln that he should have hanged more Indians and obtained a bigger majority.

In 1904, candidate Theodore Roosevelt solicited campaign funds from leading businessmen. After he was elected, he was viewed to have "turned" on them since he attempted to curtail monopolistic excess, instituted regulation, and made other business reforms. This is the original remark, but another, more sanitized version appeared in New York Times and other places as: “We bought him and he did not stay bought.”

Most people at the time thought that political corruption was limited to politicians being bribed with money to do or not to do things. It dawned on Stephens that beyond the payment of money per se—that it could involve financial arrangements like shares in companies or tips for investment, business arrangements for family companies then or in the future or even social favors. He was the first political observer to not the variety of forms of political corruption.

In the early 20th century, the corruption in America was much worse than it is today. At the time, it was very common for members of Congress and State Legilators to take bribes from corporations whose interests they protected. Franchises, subsidies and other forms of corporate welfare was much more common. The reforms of the 20th centuries eliminated much of the corruption. At the same time, Americans, including Ms. De Cleyre knew much less about the details of foreign country’s foibles and weaknesses. So she underestimated the degree of corruption of foreign nations and made her judgment from the extensive corruption that then existed in the United States.

This is a very important historical and political quotation. The first clause shows us that earmarks and private bills for the benefit of individuals and their commercial enterprises are not a new form of corruption; they have existed ever since there have been legislatures.

The most important aspect of this quotation is the SECOND clause. Very frequently, this is quoted alone without the context of the first clause. Taken alone, the meaning seems to be that the more corrupt governments pass the most laws, and there is an implication that fewer laws mean less corruption. This interpretation fits perfectly with the conservative ideology of the late 20th and early 21st centuries that believed that the smaller the government, the better; the fewer the laws passed, the better. However with the context of the first clause, we see that what Tacitus was criticizing the legislature that passed many earmarks and bills benefitting special interests. The more of these that were passed, the more corruption he argued. So he did not object to laws per se. He was not opining on the relationship between the number of laws and a corrupt government if the laws are for general benefit and not for special interests. Out of context, it might appear that Tacitus was supporting the small government, conservative philosophy. In context, he is arguing against earmarks and special interest legislation and supports what we call “good government” which has been bipartisan in America with parts of each party agreeing with Tacitus and other parts of each party trying to pass earmarks and special interest legislation.

Samuel Langhorne Clemens, 1835-1910

Vladimir Lenin. Lenin was echoing criticisms that were made the world over and even by some in the United States. However, his solution to have the press controlled by the ruling party just changed the cast of characters who were propagandizing and distorting the truth. Lenin was not able to offer a better solution nor were others. However, with enough affluence the capitalist society produced enough different publishers all competing that one did not dominate public opinion. With technology of TV and the Internet, the bar to entry is so small that almost anyone can be a publisher and find an interested market. In a way technology has solved much of the problem for capitalistic and totalitarian societies alike. In the latter, even censorship is not easy or feasible on a large scale.

This was a best seller when published in China. It is surprising to many that the Chinese censors even allowed it to be published.

In TR’s era, major corporations and trusts controlled many Federal, State, and local officials by various methods, the Most pernicious of which was bribery. Most major corporations had their own legislators, judges and executive officials.

See {640733} for an English political leader’s similar view.

A century afterwards, the biggest change was that the price of the Senate seat had gone up and the Political Action Committees had joined the Party Treasuries as the recipients of the money In the early 21st century almost all the Senators were multi-millionaires.