I’d bet that the dollar amounts involved where appointed officials corruptly use regulation to solicit bribes in the U.S. is orders of magnitude smaller than the amounts involved in “campaign donations” to elected officials to prevent and remove regulations.
The amount in question in that article is $5,000.
For comparison, the amount in question here is $34,000:
Would regulation with transparency be the best of both? Because it seems tax law changes so often and violating it so trivial I doubt it'd be better.
IMO those in charge should be forced to drink/breath from whichever area tested most polluted on a regular basis, and as a public event. Once they can no longer hide or pass on the consequences they should take the problems more seriously.
The amount in question in that article is $5,000.
For comparison, the amount in question here is $34,000:
https://theintercept.com/2020/10/12/alaska-republican-senato...