[PASSED] Against Corruption

[Alqania]

OOC: Is the absence of moderator action against a submitted proposal necessarily indicative of its legality? A proposal I submitted a while back had its legality questioned through a GHR by another player. The proposal was never removed, but it failed to reach quorum. Should I from the absence of moderator intervention infer that the mods decided in my favour and deemed the proposal legal? I haven't before.

[Anime Daisuki]

OOC: This has been submitted as a test of something. In no way am I campaigning for this at the moment. Should, by some freak accident, this get near quorum it will be removed. The drafting process continues. This has been an OOC FYI, post.

lol what, you were just testing? I feel duped.

[Flibbleites]

OOC: Is the absence of moderator action against a submitted proposal necessarily indicative of its legality?

No it's not.

[Glen-Rhodes]

OOC: This has been submitted as a test of something. In no way am I campaigning for this at the moment. Should, by some freak accident, this get near quorum it will be removed. The drafting process continues. This has been an OOC FYI, post.

lol what, you were just testing? I feel duped.

Test submissions are actually quite common. While they normally aren't for testing the legality of a proposal, some authors do a test run to see how much campaigning is necessary. So hopefully you won't feel duped in the future!

[Solusira-Animus]

The Freeland of Solusira-Animus is a perfect example of a government free of corruption (-14 Mugabe Relativity Rating) and as such we would be pleased to pledge our full and unwavering support for this resolution if it ends up being more than a mere test. We agree whole heartedly with the Chargé d'Affaires of the nation of Weed that corruption, like violence, is not an ideology but a means to an end and as such is not protected from prosecution.

- Mr. Potter, Chief Lobbyist of Solusira-Animus

[The Palentine]

Sorry old bean but I can't support this one. Soliciting bribes for vores are a major source of my income. I have a lot of unsavory, unhealthy, unwholesome, and expensive hobbies and habits to suppport.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

[Grovis]

100% support. Anti-corruption is not an ideological ban, its an important issue that affects the people of the corrupt nation. The more corruption that is within a nation state, the reduction of basic human and civil rights occur.

- King Grovis

[Weed]

Thank you everyone for your continued effort in finding suggestions! It means a lot to see so many come together to support action on such an important issue.

---

Clinton Tew

WA Ambassador from Weed

OOC: Bump. Also, will be re-submitting as a form of testing again later in the week if no answer has come.

[Bahanesia WA Mission]

Response

---

The Bahanesian Delegation of the World Assembly hereby motions to OPPOSE this proposal on the grounds of:

• enforcing an ideological ban on member-states whose government openly welcome and participate in the actions presented in this proposal

Further commentary

---

This proposal seeks to inflict penalties and prosecutorial charges on members of government who accept donations/bribes/gifts in their field of work in exchange for their support or avoidance on a certain issue. While that may be certain and plausibly beneficial, the proposal seeks to seriously undermine the efficiency of governments that are openly corrupt, or at least try not be, and that which rely on the support and communication with business corporations to carry out legislative/governmental tasks. All in all, this proposal is illegal based on its confliction against WA regulations regarding 'ideological bans', since this proposal seeks to penalize openly corrupt governments of the WA.

---

- Lord Surapat Jans, BCMG

General Assembly Representative • Bahanesia

[Bahanesia WA Mission]

I continue to reject the notion that this is an ideological ban. Corruption is not an ideology, and I will never accept such a definition.

---

Clinton Tew

(Image)

WA Ambassador from Weed

Corruption itself may not used as a distinguishing name for a particular ideology, but it certainly ties in with governments such as plutocracies, technocracies, and so on and so forth. For some of these nations, corruption is a part of everyday life and is generally not viewed in a negative sense as most people would seem to have otherwise. For some, seemingly corrupt acts are necessary in order to help facilitate government processing and movement towards new legislation.

And I have issue with this provision:

Knowing that most corporations now attempt to avoid the bad publicity of bribing by hiding the act with middlemen contracted to obtain a certain result in a negotiation, who can pay the bribe out of their own compensation

This is all written in bad taste and further seeks to demote the legitimacy of corporate entities through this fallacious claim. Instead of placing the blame of corruption in politics to 'most' corporations, why not simply revise it to indicate that 'a number of corporations( or groups, individuals, etc.) that actively participate in corrupt acts' ?

Corporations aren't the only target of this proposal now are they?

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: Can other people than proposal author ask the Secretariat for a legality ruling? Because I'd like to know their opinion on whether this is ideology ban or not.

[Ossitania]

OOC: Can other people than proposal author ask the Secretariat for a legality ruling? Because I'd like to know their opinion on whether this is ideology ban or not.

OOC: The Secretariat have a policy of the least amount of intervention necessary and legality rulings are only supposed to be sought when discussion among experienced Assembly members has reached a deadlock. There has been no persuasive argument in favour of this being an ideological ban. The closest we get is that it may potentially somewhat undermine at least some plutocracies and technocracies, which is not an ideological ban. "Ideological ban" is not a buzzphrase, it's literal. The rule is against banning ideologies. Undermining them is fine and must be fine because otherwise we'd never get to pass a resolution, given they all advance certain ideologies at the expense of others, like Auralia's "neo-liberalism in international trade" resolutions and Sionis Prioratus's "mandated domestic social welfare" resolutions. No legality ruling is necessary, those alleging it to be an ideological ban have failed to demonstrate their case. It is perfectly legal.

[Abacathea]

OOC: Can other people than proposal author ask the Secretariat for a legality ruling? Because I'd like to know their opinion on whether this is ideology ban or not.

I see no reason why not

[Flibbleites]

OOC: Bump. Also, will be re-submitting as a form of testing again later in the week if no answer has come.

OOC: That is not the correct way to get a legality check. And by doing so you run the risk of getting warned for submitting an illegal proposal. If you are so concerned about a Moderation forum thread turning into spam, tag it "MODS ONLY." Furthermore, your previous request is still being worked on, so be patient.

[Weed]

OOC: Bump. Also, will be re-submitting as a form of testing again later in the week if no answer has come.

OOC: That is not the correct way to get a legality check. And by doing so you run the risk of getting warned for submitting an illegal proposal. If you are so concerned about a Moderation forum thread turning into spam, tag it "MODS ONLY." Furthermore, your previous request is still being worked on, so be patient.

Okies, I thought it may have gotten lost in the files somewhere, as long as it is being looked over I can wait!

[Weed]

OOC: Boopity.

[Weed]

OOC: Another week of no comments. Bumpity.

[Weed]

OOC: Today marks a month and a half since I was told this was being discussed in the mod forums. Any update?

[Frisbeeteria]

Any update?

* sheepish look *

Not really. Got lost in the shuffle of several other appeals. I've bumped it.

[Weed]

Any update?

* sheepish look *

Not really. Got lost in the shuffle of several other appeals. I've bumped it.

Okay! I'll take down the ATTN Mod tag and put it up in a week or so.

[Frisbeeteria]

1. Some claim this is an ideological ban. I don't recognize "corruption" as an ideology, but rather see corruption just like I view violence, it is a means to advance one's interests (which may be ideological, may be personal) and as such corruption is just as open to regulation as violence, by my understanding of the rules.

2. Some claim because "corrupt dictatorship" is a category of the game the WA cannot prevent nations from being corrupt, and doing so is a game-mechanics (or some other type of) violation. I again don't think this is true, because: A) my proposal doesn't prevent all cases and types of corruption, therefore, a government could still offer and accept bribes and be considered corrupt. B) Nowhere in my proposal does it say "nations may not be corrupt dictatorships" or anything like that.

3. On the category: I originally drafted it as a social justice proposal. Some authors were confused at why, and to me it seemed that a bribe is a way a business spends money, and is thus a part of capitalism and economic freedoms. Restrictions of economic freedoms and business regulations are social justice proposals. Other posters thought because it deals with influencing public officials specifically (the definition only applies to bribes of public officials) then political stability is a better fit. I agree on a basic level that "A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order." In the interest of law and order seems to hit my resolution square on the head, a lot more than "A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare."

1. Not a problem. "Corruption" isn't an ideology. Ossitania expressed it well enough
2. Not seeing this as a problem, for the reasons you list
3. It surely isn't Social Justice. Money changes hands all the time without it necessarily being social or just. Political Stability looks like a better fit, but it's not perfect. The problem with political freedoms (which form the backbone of Political Stability) is that they give with one hand and take with the other. Removing the ability to bribe corrupt officials takes freedoms from those who would bribe; but grants those who seek honest government with a larger degree of freedom than the others lose.

So yeah, those three legality challenges are not going to be a factor.

[Weed]

Great! Thank you for that quick response. In that case, and considering it has been several 'bump' attempts at stirring up further discussion, I am submitting this. Thanks in advance for all of the approvals of my porposal!

---

Clinton Tew

WA Ambassador from Weed

[Christian Democrats]

I have two concerns regarding this proposal.

The only way this effects a donation to a political campaign is if the donation is made to bring about a "specific action or result". In other words, a large insurance firm donating money to a candidate for President to create general good-will between the candidate (future president) and the firm is fine. If the donation was made in order to make the candidate generally friendly to the interests of the insurance industry that is fine. If it was made with the intent of convincing or persuading the future president into supporting and signing a law that would require people to buy the service the firm supplies, no matter what they charge, THAT is required to be illegal, because they are trying to get him/her to do something specific. So, in summary: you could't give donations in order to get specific results.

In the paragraph above, you say that organizations cannot "give donations in order to get specific results." The example you provide entails a group donating to the campaign of a presidential candidate "with the intent of convincing or persuading the future president into supporting and signing a law." To illustrate my concern, let me create a hypothetical situation.

In Ruritania, Anthony Hope, a prominent political independent, is running in the 2014 presidential election. One of the major issues in this campaign is same-sex marriage. In 2012, a bill was passed by the Ruritanian Parliament to change the definition of marriage so that homosexual couples could marry; but this bill was vetoed by then President Rudolf Rassendyll. The Parliament, subsequently, was unable to override his veto. Rassendyll would be unable to run for reelection in 2014 due to the constitutional term limit. Members of the Socialist Party promised that they would try to enact gay marriage legislation again at that time. It is a foregone conclusion that the bill will pass again. The only question is whether or not the new president will sign it into law.

In the past, Hope has supported civil unions (created in 2007); although, some observers think that he might come out in full support of gay marriage so that he can maximize the number of votes that he'll receive from Ruritania's LGBTQ population. An organization that calls itself the Alliance for Marriage Equality makes a €100,000 donation to the Hope campaign with the expectation that he will sign same-sex marriage into law, whether or not he endorses it while running. Hope stays silent on the contentious issue during the campaign. His main opponent, in a television interview, says that he favors traditional marriage soon after the €100,000 donation is made, so Hope knows he'll receive the LGBTQ vote regardless; and he does not want to take the chance that he'll alienate some of the social conservatives and moderates who back him.

Hope, an independent, wins the presidential election, receiving 53 percent of the vote. The Socialist Party wins 107 of the 200 seats in Parliament, finishing more than 40 seats ahead of the next largest party. About two months after the State Opening of Parliament, a same-sex marriage bill is passed by a vote of 124 to 76. At least 134 members, or a two-thirds supermajority, would have to support the bill for the override of a presidential veto. The bill is sent to President Hope's desk. He alone will decide whether or not civil marriage will be expanded to homosexual couples in Ruritania. After waiting for three days, Hope decides to sign the Civil Marriage Act into law, thus repaying the Alliance for Marriage Equality for its €100,000 donation to his political campaign. If that donation had not been made, Hope probably would have vetoed the bill because, as an independent, he is a strong proponent of consensus decision-making; and his gut had been telling him that the definition of marriage ought not to be changed, a major shift in society, unless such a change had supermajority support. His gut had been telling him that civil unions with the same benefits as civil marriage were good enough. What does it matter whether it's called marriage or not if homosexual couples receive all the same benefits as heterosexual couples?

Was the donation made to the Hope campaign a bribe? I think so according to the language of your proposal because it was made "with the intent of convincing or persuading the future president into supporting and signing a law." Was the payment made to the campaign wrong? Not really. Groups give money to political campaigns all the time in hopes that it will convince politicians to adopt certain policy positions. Why should such a donation be illegal? I do not know.

My second concern regards the definition of a bribe. In the definition, a bribe is labeled as something done that "is unethical or illegal." As a matter of normative ethics, I believe that objective morality exists. As a matter of descriptive ethics, it is obvious to anyone who thinks that morality is subjective. Beliefs about what is and is not ethical differ from person to person. Thus, what meaning does the "unethical" part of your definition have if any at all? Also, is it not nonsensical to make something illegal by defining it in terms of something else that is assumed already to be illegal? What if that other thing is not already illegal in the member state where your proposal would be applied? In that case, it seems evident that your proposal would mean nothing; it would have no effect whatsoever in that member state.

I do hope that you are able to refute the points that I make above because I really do like this idea. At this time, it appears to me, whether truly or not, that this proposal is deeply flawed; thus, for the time being, I must express my opposition to it. Right now, I think you need to withdraw this proposal from quorum so that you can work toward improving and resubmitting it.

Best wishes,

Ambassador to the World Assembly
The Most Holy and Grand Empire of Christian Democrats

[The Two Jerseys]

Defining, for the purposes of this resolution, gifts as money, assets, favours, services, future employment, or anything which the receiver considers to have value,

I'm not opposed to the proposal in principle, but this definition seems a bit strict since technically everything has value. With this definition you can't even give a public official something as cheap as a pen with your company name on it.

[Auralia]

Was the donation made to the Hope campaign a bribe? I think so according to the language of your proposal because it was made "with the intent of convincing or persuading the future president into supporting and signing a law." Was the payment made to the campaign wrong? Not really. Groups give money to political campaigns all the time in hopes that it will convince politicians to adopt certain policy positions. Why should such a donation be illegal? I do not know.

[...]

My second concern regards the definition of a bribe. In the definition, a bribe is labeled as something done that "is unethical or illegal." As a matter of normative ethics, I believe that objective morality exists. As a matter of descriptive ethics, it is obvious to anyone who thinks that morality is subjective. Beliefs about what is and is not ethical differ from person to person. Thus, what meaning does the "unethical" part of your definition have if any at all? Also, is it not nonsensical to make something illegal by defining it in terms of something else that is assumed already to be illegal? What if that other thing is not already illegal in the member state where your proposal would be applied? In that case, it seems evident that your proposal would mean nothing; it would have no effect whatsoever in that member state.

In a sense, your second concern resolves the first, but only by making the proposal completely useless.

The proposal states that bribery is "the act of offering a gift to any public official, officer, agent or employee with the expectation of a specific action or result which the public official will take or cause in the operation of their duties, when that action or result is unethical or illegal." Therefore, if the expected action or result is not unethical or illegal, then a gift to a political official is not a bribe.

As you point out, the definition of ethics varies, and legality is determined by member states. Hence, member nations can essentially redefine bribery as they see fit, and the proposal is completely ineffective; this alone should justify withdrawing and redrafting the proposal.

I have some additional concerns about the proposal:

Mandates all member states make the act of bribery an illegal action for a business, citizen, or non-state organization or entity to participate in, with heavy fines for organizations found to be in violation,

Why is this proposal dictating how we punish bribery in our individual nations? What if we find jail time more effective than fines?

Clarifying there shall be no difference legally between a person or organization offering a bribe, and contracting a person or entity which engages in bribery, unless the contracting nation clearly indicated bribery was not acceptable,

I suspect this is a typo.