Sorry, that's against the rules.

So let's break the rules.

And if we're gonna break the rules, you need to know them.

Bribery of a politician is illegal, or at least our legal system thinks it should be.

There's three major court decisions that built up to the loophole we're going to use because a mistake was made along the way that legalized the bribery of any US politician.

Now, in a perfect, crime-ridden world, we could just give money directly to politicians in exchange for something.

Quid pro quo.

But our first court decision in 1976 prevents that.

Buckley v. Valeo.

The Supreme Court rules that it is constitutional to limit donations to political campaigns.

Because if you can't give $100,000 to a candidate, and you're limited to something like $3000 that makes it very unlikely the candidate will do something for you.

We've got senators accepting gold bars out here.

Good luck bribing someone for $3000.

The limit also applies to political action committees, PACs, which take donations, then give the money to candidates.

You as of right now can only donate $5000 to a PAC per election cycle.

But you're a millionaire, and you're looking to bribe someone.

So $5K's just not going to cut it.

2010.

Citizens United v. FEC.

The Supreme Court rules that as long as a corporation doesn't coordinate with candidates, there's no possibility of them corrupting candidates.

That limiting the spending of a corporation to advocate for or against any political candidate is an infringement on free speech.

The free speech of the corporation, of course.

This overruled the 1990 Supreme Court decision that said it was constitutional to limit corporations spending on elections.

Because if corporations could spend as much as they want to promote candidates, it would distort the political process.

That's what the old one said.

Thank God we fixed that, right?

So now, corporations can spend as much as they like to help out a politician's campaign as long as they're "not coordinating."

But you want to bribe a politician, and you still can't donate any more than $5000 to a PAC.

Those limits are still there.

So we need our third court case.

Speechnow.org v. FEC; also in 2010.

Almost immediately after Citizens United.

With Citizens United ruling that independent expenditures by corporations have no risk of corrupting an election, then neither do donations to those corporations.

That's the logic.

This is where the mistake was made.

And if your donation has no risk of corruption, no risk of quid pro quo, then Buckley doesn't apply anymore.

It's unconstitutional to stop you from donating as much money as you want to a corporation.

And it's unconstitutional to stop a corporation from spending that money on their own.

Important note:

This wasn't a Supreme Court ruling. It never reached the Supreme Court because the attorney general didn't think it would be important.

So, if you set up a political action committee, but it doesn't coordinate with any campaign, any candidate, people can donate as much as they want.

Those PACs are called Super PACs.

Try to pause here and figure out how you'd bribe a politician with these tools. Because now it's easy.

All you need to do is promise that politician you'll donate $100,000. Maybe a million. Just not to them.

You'll donate it to the Super PAC that's running ads to advocate for them.

All they have to do in exchange is give you a favor once they're elected. You know, something for something.

And because the courts have declared that this could never, ever, possibly cause corruption, you're in the clear.

That is how our elections function and have been since 2010.

Now to any normal person, that's a clear mistake .

Because that's corruption. What we've been doing is corruption.

It's bribery.

It's what the law intends to prevent.

There's no functional difference if the money you donate is going to a PAC or to the campaign as long as it helps the candidate.

You can use that to influence them.

"Quid pro quo."

It's a clear oversight.

This is why and most of the spending on modern campaigns doesn't come from the campaigns anymore.

It comes from Super PACs. SperPACS funded by the rich to buy politicians.

The solution is putting those donation limits back. And they can be, once the Supreme Court overrules the court that declared these limits unconstitutional.

But until that mistake is fixed, this is your up to date guide on how to bribe a politician.