[B]ecause civil law describes a contract as an offer, consideration and acceptance, in politics we have:
1. (Offer) – The candidate promises/offers to do/not do something specific.
2. (Consideration) – The candidate promises to do/not do this in exchange for a vote.
3. (Acceptance) – The voter casts his/her vote on the basis of the candidate’s positions/promises.
And this might mean exactly what?
Failure of the person or proposition soliciting my vote to uphold their end of the contract is breach of contract. In such a breach, their campaign advertisements could be considered false and misleading (fraud) and those who engaged in the fraud are guilty of conspiracy and, perhaps racketeering.
That’ might be change we need, but ain’t gonna happen until everybody in the U.S. Senate stops wearing togas. The rest is here.
Good luck trying to enforce that contract. What a ding-a-ling.
Well, Politicians are lawyers. It’s their job to play word games and lie without technically lieing to enforce the desires of their clients. Politicians are the best of them and lie to everybody.
“and those who engaged in the fraud are guilty of conspiracy and, perhaps racketeering.”
The key word is “racketeering” – it covers all kinds of offenses that governments do all the time. It’s only against the law when an individual does it.
It’s the nature of government (and the politicians that run it) that laws don’t apply to them. We have laws against murder, but the state executes prisoners. We have laws against theft, but the IRS takes 20% of your paycheck.
Reality Check for the blogger at “There Will Be Truth”: Unlike Star Trek, “Make It So” doesn’t happen in the real world.
The President or Governor or Mayor or Whoever can intend to keep a political promise, but if that promise doesn’t have a legal footing (e.g. if Congress or a legislature or council won’t pass the enabling bill, or they change the bill so it doesn’t do what was intended), the bill doesn’t become law, and the promise can’t be kept. Checks and balances–see your high school Government book.
1. (Offer) – The candidate promises/offers to do/not do something specific.
2. (Consideration) – The candidate promises to do/not do this in exchange for a vote.
3. (Acceptance) – The voter casts his/her vote on the basis of the candidate’s positions/promises.
Isn’t this illegal. Like excepting a bribe. Didn’t Starbucks just run afoul of this with their Free coffee deal.
Floyd: no enabling legislation is required. Contracts and their definition are part of all law in the United States.
Jetfire: Interesting observation. I’d think that a vote would be the only legally sanctioned consideration.
Improbus: I never said it was easy. If you could brig this to court, the most likely arguments the politician could make are:
* A vote is worthless and not worthy of consideration.
* She or he was insane or mentally incompetent and not capable of the offer.
* The voter is similarly insane or mentally incompetent and cannot accept the offer.
* That nothing they said should have been taken seriously because they lied
I’d like to see them on record for any of those.
This story shouldn’t be taken seriously due to the word “California” in it.
The ten commandments of governance apply: (See Harvard Law School Bar Exam)
1. All’s fair in love, war and politics.
2. You can fool all of the people all of the time if you have a big enough advertising budget.
3. He who laughs, lasts.
4. A verbal contract is not worth the paper it’s written on.
5. Belief is something you can change on.
6. A penny saved is a drop in the bucket.
7. You can’t handle the Truth, mister.
8. Words don’t kill people. Words kill votes.
9. Is this me looking like I give a damn?
10. Proof of how you voted is, by law, secret. Even from yourself.
I believe courts have already ruled that a vote can not be sold. If this ding bat is claiming he sold his vote for consideration he is sadly mistaken if he now thinks he can collect.
#3, chuck,
It’s the nature of government …
If the government passes a law, then that is the law. If they decide that it is legal to execute someone for a specific crime then it is now legal for the government to execute someone. The same for taxes.
When it is done for the good of the people, it can hardly be called racketeering. But dream on, the wing nut side will be trotting these bull shit scenarios out for the next while.
#9 – I thought they were going to stick with UFO stories?
Lets hope this guy doesn’t win. I heard some of the campaign promises said during this election cycle. China will own this country if all of them are kept.
Mr. Fusion: believe it or not, in legal terms “consideration” for the purpose of a contract has a broader definition than selling. In this case, it is well established — and legal –for a politician to make a promise in exchange for a vote. That is offer and acceptance with the vote as consideration.
Well the Dems promised to end the Iraq war during their 2006 campaigns.
With a Democratically controlled congress, they only needed to kill funding the war to end it.
It still hasn’t happened yet. What gives? Is this somehow Bush’s fault? 🙂
lperdue: A promise by a candidate is not a contract, and it certainly isn’t a law.
High School Civics (state level, but local and Congressional levels work similarly):
For instance, suppose a candidate for the state legislature says he promises to create a bill to (for instance) widen a highway, wins his seat. He drafts a bill which is sent to the legislature. That bill is not a contract. By the way, many bills die without ever being considered, at all levels of government.
If the legislature doesn’t pass that bill, the highway isn’t going to widened, simply because the legislature has not passed the bill (the enabling legislation) and hasn’t allocated money to build it. The project dies. In all states, the governor can also veto a bill, though that veto can be overridden by the legislature.
If the bill is passed and is signed by the Governor, then and only then can contracts be written and money allocated to widen the road.
Look instead to the Obama citizenship lawsuits.
If they can’t be sued, how about demerits or tickets?
There ought to be a non-partisan group that archives tape and then compares it to reality. Imagine an comprehensible web page that indexed campaign promises and whether the pols lived up to them.
Floyd: you do not need “a law” to enforce a contract. A contract is not determined by legislation.
Chris: the Obama citizenship lawsuits were not tossed because somehow they were not allowed by law. They were tossed for lack of evidence. Same as the McCain citizenship issues.
#12, Lewis,
In this case, it is well established — and legal –for a politician to make a promise in exchange for a vote.
True. BUT, a promise, in most cases, is not enforceable. The legal term is “puffery”. This is mostly seen where someone selling a product says it is “The Best In The World” or some other claim.
A vote does not have value as several illegally disenfranchised voters have had their cases thrown out for that very reason.
To sell a vote for consideration is illegal. Minnesota charged someone for selling his vote on eBay a few years ago. Maryland makes it illegal to register to vote if you have ever bought or sold votes. I assume other jurisdictions have the same requirements. I couldn’t find any Federal law but voting is generally seen a a State matter.
Your mileage may vary depending upon your jurisdiction.
I like it! Reminds me of the joke, “How do you know when a politician is lying? His lips are moving…”
Lewis,
Ok, a little more searching,
Minnesota The charge carries up to five years’ imprisonment and a $10,000 fine.
Washington, one yr jail and $5,000 fine
Florida it is illegal but I don’t know the fine,
Justice Department spokeswoman Chris Watney said at least two federal laws make it illegal to buy or sell votes or to aid and abet in the buying or selling of votes
The same link has California and New York spokespeople also saying vote selling or buying is illegal in their States.
OK, Federal 18 USCS § 597 reads, in part:
“Whoever solicits, accepts, or receives any such expenditure in consideration of his vote or the withholding of his vote–…
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”
So if you want gain for your vote, make it worthwhile.
Mr. Fusion: the law of contracts holds that a valid contract has three elements:
1. an offer (promise),
2. consideration (vote)
3. acceptance (vote cast for promise).
In this case, a valid contract is present, but the broader concept of “consideration” does not fall within the narrower definition of “sale.”
A “sale” always involves a contract, but a contract does not always involve a sale.
Marriage and pre-nuptial agreements are examples of legally valid contracts that are not sales.
Of course, in cultures where women are still chattel, and require doweries, the sale aspect is clear.
Not going to happen. Though it would be funny to watch Obama sued when his promise of not raising taxes on 95% of the people turns out to be hot air.
I can’t remember, did Bush promise to bankrupt us?
#21, Lewis,
Mr. Fusion: the law of contracts holds that a valid contract has three elements:
Only partly true. You may not make a contract for something you can’t sell. In other words, you need to have the ability and authority to make the transaction. If part of the contract is illegal then the contract may not be enforceable depending on the illegality.
A woman is the sole custodian of her body. She may use it to enjoy sex or pleasure someone else with sex all day. Unfortunately, she may not sell that service in most of the US.
Contracts that are made with a knowingly illegal portion are not enforceable. So even if you make an agreement with a prostitute and she decides part way through the act to renege on the deal, too bad for you. Go ahead, sue her for the money back. (cue laugh track)
The same with a person’s vote. You may use it to vote for anyone you please, or not vote, but you may not sell it.
Another example would be Pay-Day lenders. Here in Indiana if they violate the law, regardless if they have a contract or not, they can’t collect in court. Because of the small business lending laws, the contract becomes null and void and unenforceable.
Contracts are not always foolproof or enforceable.