 Editor in Chief Bill   | 17 May 2018 7:44 p.m. PST |
…As interpreted, this clause prohibits receipt of consulting fees, gifts, travel expenses, honoraria, or salary by current federal employees—including active-duty military and retired military personnel, regular and reserve—unless congressional consent is obtained… link |
| Cacique Caribe | 17 May 2018 7:51 p.m. PST |
|
 ochoin  | 17 May 2018 8:55 p.m. PST |
I would suggest that this is a sensible precaution.
The Chinese , for instance, are quite adroit at peddling influence by any means. An Australian senator recently was forced to retire because of his overly close links to the Chinese. These links include quite large cash donations to his re- election funds.
I'm assuming Americans may not also be immune to such inducements? |
| Daithi the Black | 18 May 2018 5:54 a.m. PST |
In the USA, emoluments have been a fact of life in politics going back to at least 1988. All of a sudden it's a big deal, and for theclife ofvne I can't figure out why no one cared for the last 30 years. |
| 15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 18 May 2018 7:04 a.m. PST |
Conflicts of interests. This is to prevent any future Mike Flynns or Jared Kushners from having any sort of "foreign intercourse" with countries we don't like. |
| Cacique Caribe | 18 May 2018 11:35 a.m. PST |
And what about past presidents and candidates, career legislators and even judges? Do those count, seeing as how they all claim some jurisdiction over our armed forces? Or is this clause (the Emoluments Clause, U.S. Constitution: Article I, Section 9, clause 8) directed solely against our military officials, and not to keep in check the federal "civilians" who direct them and set their policies? Dan
PS. Another example of the struggles between the "proverbial" cast iron and the wet clay? :) |
| sunderland | 18 May 2018 1:43 p.m. PST |
It's okay when you donate millions to the Clinton Foundation; then it's no conflict of interest, right? I mean, it's not like she was secretary of state or anything, right? Neither of them are an ex-president, right? The new (or maybe old) trick is simply employing the children or relatives. That way no money directly goes from one party to the other (just like in a "foundation"), so it's not reaaaally corruption. |
| Cacique Caribe | 18 May 2018 2:34 p.m. PST |
I don't really care which side does it, it's wrong. And if it's wrong for lowly Federal employees to accept, then it should be wrong for any of the big wigs to do it as well. Probably more so. Dan |
| twawaddell | 18 May 2018 4:14 p.m. PST |
Congress gets carried away with this on a regular basis. I remember back in the '80's when we were prohibited from accepting a cup of coffee or even a glass of water for fear it would be perceived as a "bribe." Meanwhile Congress critters did all the stuff discussed above. I've long suspected that many in Congress (or in the White House for that matter) ran for government to dodge prosecution. |
| Striker | 18 May 2018 4:29 p.m. PST |
Well I'm excited about this new Congressional safety step. I'm not in any of the groups affected so if you're effected by this I'm taking donations. |
| mckrok | 18 May 2018 5:29 p.m. PST |
Being a retired military officer and currently a federal employee, I don't need an Emoluments Clause to keep me from accepting gifts from foreign governments. I simply thought it was common sense and prudent. pjm |
| ochoin | 18 May 2018 8:52 p.m. PST |
Peddling influence in many ways seems dodgy but with even a hint of being in the pay of a foreign power is clearly suggesting treachery? |
