Strengthening Bribery Laws Really Dicey Territory for HRC

[admin]

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/em ... zATdAeFAfj

This email has also been verified by Google DKIM 2048-bit RSA key

RE: memo on govt reform/pulbic corruption

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected], [email protected]
Date: 2016-03-01 20:20
Subject: RE: memo on govt reform/pulbic corruption

We will mull. I can see this either way.

*From:* Neera Tanden [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:* Tuesday, March 1, 2016 5:10 PM
*To:* Jake Sullivan <[email protected]>
*Cc:* John Podesta <[email protected]>; Sara Solow <
[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: memo on govt reform/pulbic corruption

This is a jump ball. She may be so tainted she's really vulnerable = if
so, maybe a message of I've seen how this sausage is made, it needs to
stop, I'm going to stop it will actually work. So maybe it requires harder
charging.

People are up for radical solutions, my gut is to push here.

I wouldn't dismiss the issues in the 50s. That still means really strong
support. And some of that is a lot easier for a Dem.

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 4:49 PM, Jake Sullivan <[email protected]>
wrote:

Neera – so it seems like the ideas that really have currency are the
following:

· Increase government’s public reporting so voters know what
goverment is doing and how money is being spent. 66 of soft partisans
think this would be very effective in making government more accountable.

· Strengthen bribery laws to ensure that politicians don’ change
legislation for political donations. 62%

· Require full public reporting in government purchases or
contracts, create stricter penalties for contractors who violate
agreements. 61

· Strictly limit the amount of money that lobbyists and their
clients can contribute. 60

· Require any organization that spends money on election ads to
disclose its major donors. 60

The first and third are easy enough, although I wonder how much we’ll break
through with them. We have already embraced the fifth.

The fourth idea seems challenging – who counts as “clients”? Would we
limit the funds given by people working for companies that lobby more than
those who don’t? Not sure how that would work.

The second idea is a favorite of mine, as you know, but REALLY dicey
territory for HRC, right?

Just trying to think about how we actually operationalize this, because I
totally agree you are on to something.

And where do you stand on a $100 limit on campaign contributions, full stop?

*From:* Neera Tanden [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:* Monday, February 29, 2016 11:52 PM
*To:* Jake Sullivan <[email protected]>; John Podesta <
[email protected]>
*Subject:* memo on govt reform/pulbic corruption

I've discussed thoughts on this with both of you so sending it along. Hope
it's helpful. We are fleshing out these policy ideas, but we are about a
week away from that process being done. Thought this was important to get
to you sooner though. I know members of your team are fleshing out similar
ideas.

Let me know your thoughts.

Thanks!