Political hypocrisy

Forum for Pittsburgh Penguins-related messages.

Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf

Political hypocrisy

Postby Sam's Drunk Dog on Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:02 am

I give you a scenario:

A very big business is introducing a new product. It needs a vendor to help provide services to distribute this product to the public. In order to choose the best vendor for the company, the company has created a vendor selection committee. The committee members are chosen by the CEO and the Board of Directors. The CEO chooses three people and the Board of Directors appoints four. The committee will award a contract to the vendor the committee deems is the best choice for the company.

One Vendor of the service the company needs has the potential to turn a huge profit in the millions if it (Vendor) is awarded the contract. Unlike the other vendors in consideration, this Vendor has decided that the merit of their deal is not enough and that they need to do something else to get the contract. The Vendor decides it needs to pay-off members of the committee so that they vote in the Vendor’s favor. Better yet, they decide to pay-off the CEO since he chooses three of the committee members and can influence some of the others. The CEO instructs some of his low-level employees to “cook the booksâ€￾ and dig up dirt on the other vendors in order to make the Vendor the clear cut choice.

In the business world practices like these will send a person to jail if they are caught, and can potentially bankrupt a company.

Now substitute the “very big businessâ€￾ with Pennsylvania. The new product is slots casino gambling, the Vendor is “Forest City/ Harrahsâ€￾ and the vendor selection committee is the Gaming Board. The CEO is Governor Rendell and the Board of Directors is PA Congress. Instead of a pay-off it is called political contributions.

This is how it reads…

PENNSYLVANIA is introducing SLOTS CASINO GAMBLING. PA needs a vendor to help provide services to distribute this product to the public. In order to choose the best vendor for the company, PA has created A GAMING BOARD. The GAMING BOARD members are chosen by GOVERNOR RENDELL and the PA CONGRESS. The GOVERNOR chooses three people and the PA CONGRESS appoints four. The GAMING BOARD will award a GAMING LICENSE to the vendor the BOARD deems is the best choice for the STATE.

One Vendor (FOREST CITY) of the service the company needs has the potential to turn a huge profit in the millions if it (FC) is awarded the LICENSE. Unlike the other vendors in consideration, FC decided that the merit of their deal is not enough and that they need to do something else to get the LICENSE. FC decides it needs to pay-off members of the BOARD so that they vote in FC’s favor. Better yet, they decide to pay-off the GOVERNOR since he chooses three of the GAMING BOARD members and can influence some of the others. The GOVERNOR instructs some of his low-level employees (I.E. ONORATO, MURPHY) to “cook the booksâ€￾ and dig up dirt on the other vendors in order to make the FC the clear cut choice.

But instead of being called a pay-off, in the political world it is campaign contribution.

Makes you think doesn’t it.
Sam's Drunk Dog
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 18,655
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:31 pm
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Return to Pittsburgh Penguins

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: FrozenNuts and 8 guests

e-mail