Democratic US lawmakers introduce bill to bar foreign payments to president
Democratic US lawmakers introduce bill to bar foreign payments to president
Democratic U.S. lawmakers introduced legislation on Tuesday that would bar the president and other top officials from accepting payments from foreign governments while in office, a measure clearly aimed at Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.
The bill, which has no chance of passing the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives as the Nov. 5 election approaches, is aimed at tightening enforcement of the Constitution's "Emoluments Clause."
House Oversight Committee Democrats released a report in January that found businesses tied to former President Trump received at least $7.8 million in foreign payments from 20 countries during his four years in the White House.
"For centuries, the President and other high-ranking government officials strictly respected the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses. Sadly, President Trump's brazen acceptance of illegal foreign payments and benefits showed the need for clear rules enforcing the Constitution's preeminent anti-corruption provisions," said Senator Richard Blumenthal, who introduced the bill with Representative Jamie Raskin.
"wait it's not already?!" - every rational person reading this.
It is and it has been since 1787, but there's no functional difference between a law not being enforced and the thing the law's about being legal.
(Art. I, § 9, cl. 8): “[N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
(Art. II, § 1, cl. 7): “The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.”
(Art. I, § 6, cl. 2): “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.”
(Art. I, 9, cl. 8): "[NJo Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State'
Unfortunately this doesn't sufficiently cover things like 'Random Russian Billionaire Oligarch" so long as there is the slightest modicum of a veil of separation from "any King, Prince or State".
So for example, as long as Putin secretly tells his billionaire buddy to go pay off Trump and to keep it hush hush, this clause is even more toothless than it already is in practice.
This is literally already in the US Constitution, but no one will enforce it. What makes you think this will end any differently?
Specific laws are often needed in order to enforce the constitution. Legislation can go into greater detail and eliminate ambiguities and grey areas. And it can add an actual enforcement mechanism, since the constitution doesn't generally include any actual penalties.
That also means that law enforcement agencies can pursue those cases. That's a hell of a lot better than relying on congress to impeach someone.
This particular bill might be redundant, but only if existing laws adequately cover these issues. I'm not familiar enough with current laws on the topic to say one way or the other. Not that it matters much when this bill has no chance of becoming law anyway.
Specific laws are often needed in order to enforce the constitution.
I realize what you say is true in practice, but JFC it's so fucked up. If a provision of the Constitution can't be enforced without legislation, then that part of the Constitution is simply meaningless. Why do we accept judges treating the Constitution as nothing more than a polite suggestion to Congress?
Why limit it to foreign governments, and why limit it to the president?
Hell why not limit congress and the president to the conditions of the lowest quartile?
It's not like billionaires and corporations interests are any more aligned with the people than foreign governments. This has the bonus effect of essentially banning Trump if he doesn't want to give up his wealth.
"The bill would prevent high-ranking officials, also including members of Congress, from receiving payments directly or indirectly from foreign governments through businesses they control and create penalties for unauthorized acceptance of foreign payments. The ban would apply for two years after leaving office unless Congress authorized an exception."
From the arricle.
foreign governments should not be limited to while in office. taking an office should mean foregoing that type of thing in your life.
Will this prevent AIPAC from buying politicians?
AIPAC claims to be a domestic american organization so their single issue goal of serving a foreign power is not considered 'foreign'.
So that's fun.
We’re better off packing the court and nullifying Roberts’ traitorous decision to sell out the country to russia.
I'm waiting to hear the orange asshole's complaints about how unfair it all is.
How much do you want to bet that de facto Israeli government agencies such as AIPAC are exempt from these WAY overdue rules?
Probably have a loophole due to being headquartered in the US.
That and due to the vast majority of federal elections involving AIPAC funding for or against at least one of the candidates.
AIPAC bribes and/or blackmails almost all of Washington. They're the ethnostate equivalent of the fossil fuel lobby and intimately intertwined with the military industrial complex.
This says it would strengthen enforcement but it does not really say how. We've already seen Trump ignore Emoluments Clause because it does not lay out any punishment.
Automatic shot down commencing.