[TameAntelope]

That's not what the NYT is reporting, the NYT is reporting that Person A gives person B money, person B provides access for Person A to talk to Person C about giving Person A a pardon.

The pardoner, Person C, does not get any money. That is an important distinction.

I'm not saying Trump isn't accepting payments for pardons, I'm saying the NYT article linked above isn't reporting that. They're reporting on lobbying efforts, which don't appear to be illegal.

People pay for the President's time quite frequently. What's interesting about this story is that the folks with access are trying directly to solicit from convicts. I think that's fairly new or at least newsworthy.

[oji0hub]

My example is purposely simplified. It's only intended to illustrate how the same situation can be described in different ways. In reality, it makes a lot of sense to add all sorts of layers.

A gives B money, C offers A a parson, B does C a favor.

Etc etc etc.

This construction may obscure what's happening and may even make conviction impossible, which we may take to mean that it's no longer illegal. But legal or illegal, it is effectively paying for freedom.

---

This has nothing to do with lobbying. Freedom is what people pay for.

[jfengel]

If B does C a favor, then it's lobbying. The lobbying laws are there precisely to regulate this kind of thing. You can't completely isolate lawmakers, and wouldn't want to. But you do want to know who they're talking to, and how much they're being paid to. That's why they have to register as lobbyists, and be audited for that. They're not allowed to funnel money or favors, and the FEC is watching.

It's far from perfect, but it's not as nefarious as it sounds. It's a compromise.

[TameAntelope]

Ah, so this is a, "I don't like lobbying" complaint?

Fair enough, lobbying has gotten weird and pay-to-play, though if you don't like what's happening here, I recommend you don't look at what folks are doing about every other major policy initiative throughout Congress.