Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
In order:
Campaign finance law: I don't care so much about prosecuting people for violating this in terms of donations. Dinesh D'Souza's case comes to mind as a recent, silly prosecution. I do care about violations where the money is stolen, such as Duncan Hunter's case.
Money laundering laws: Depends on the purpose of the laundering. Drug money I find hard to be offended about, given banks can legally accept and loan money to pushers like the Sackler family. Seems arbitrary to have a fit about holding El Chapo's money while countenancing banking for any opioid maker. And money laundering laws are also too broadly written. Structuring a transaction to keep it off uncle Sam's radar should be legal. The govt has no right to full disclosure of everything. It's a catch-all charge too often abused.
Antitrust: I have no problem at all with antitrust laws. I don't know why you included this here.
Securities laws: To this day, no one has clearly defined insider trading. How can that charge hold any credibility? Generally, I think securities laws are too numerous and byzantine. I don't even know where to start as so many of them should be repealed. But I can make one finite point about many of them: They more often act as barriers to entry, preventing changes in the securities industry, than they do as preventative or protective devices.
|
We put way too many people in prison, I think that is something that you and I can agree on. But the problem really isn't with the number of bankers laundering money, securities dealers conning clients, or fat cats violating campagin finance laws. That's not the problem at all.
Threaded Mode