42 out of 45 of the senators who voted against gun control had received donations from gun lobbyists. I find this shocking, but maybe it's par for the course. (Maybe it also represented their genuine opinions, but I don't think this is the point)

Unless I'm mistaken (or out-of-date, as happens frequently), a British parliamentarian who was found out having taken money and voted accordingly would have to resign.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/18/pro-gun-groups-donated-senators

It isn't shocking to Americans. But it is disgusting!

I note the Guardian failed to find out how many Senators that voted FOR the proposal also received donations from the NRA.

I would find that interesting but, as in this case, not earth shattering.

Unless I'm mistaken (or out-of-date, as happens frequently), a British parliamentarian who was found out having taken money and voted accordingly would have to resign.

It's not just the MPs I'm concerned about. For instance the crazy and unpopular policy of erecting thousands of on-shore wind turbines has been pushed by the civil servants in the Depertment of Energy as well as the elected ministers of all parties forming government in recent years. The only reason I can see for this support in government is that lots of people must be receiving lots of back-handers. The technical arguments in favour of wind-turbines have long been shown as specious, misleading and downright fraudulent.

It isn't shocking to Americans. But it is disgusting!

Well, I think it IS shocking AND disgusting, and I'm shocked that Americans take it as a matter of course.

Back-handers to civil servants are criminal offences, HB; front-handers (?) to senators are not.

I'm not "shocked" at anything a politician will do. I am frequently disgusted.

It isn't shocking to Americans. But it is disgusting!

Well, I think it IS shocking AND disgusting, and I'm shocked that Americans take it as a matter of course.

Back-handers to civil servants are criminal offences, HB; front-handers (?) to senators are not.

As I understand it, their parties took the money, not the Senators. I think in the UK, some businesses choose to donate to political parties as well.

Previous governments in the uK made commitments on increasing use of non-fossil fuels, which meant either subsidising environmentally unfriendly hydro-power, unpopular nuclear power, wind, or unproven future technologies. I don't know how much waste-burning power generation has been established, but the long and short of it is that if government wants to determine the fuel mix to win votes, then subsides are pretty much the most effective tool to do it. And the electorate, apparently, thought that macro-environmental issues were important.

Perhaps it is all a conspiracy funded by backhanders from the Danish equipment suppliers; or farmers looking for additional subsidies. But I don't think so.

I imagine that the NRA finances the campaigns of politiicans who support gun ownership. So it would indicate that they were a poor judge of politicians if they financed people that did not vote the same way...

SC

But, especially with wind-turbines, the information about how inefficient they are, how environmetally damaging they are, how sheer bloody expensive they are when looking at lifetime production -v- cost and so on, has not been put out by the politicians and their civil-servant advisors.

Either these people are criminally ignorant, or they are just criminals, I don't know. But they have lied to the electorate in a very coordinated manner. Who the conductor is, I do not know. But the song-sheet is the same with whoever is in power.

(Vote UKIP - they are the only party saying No More!)

But, especially with wind-turbines, the information about how inefficient they are, how environmetally damaging they are, how sheer bloody expensive they are when looking at lifetime production -v- cost and so on, has not been put out by the politicians and their civil-servant advisors.

Either these people are criminally ignorant, or they are just criminals, I don't know. But they have lied to the electorate in a very coordinated manner. Who the conductor is, I do not know. But the song-sheet is the same with whoever is in power.

(Vote UKIP - they are the only party saying No More!)

I'm surprised that you consider yourself so much better informed than the investors, government etc. pdrhaps they were all in on the scam...

The underlying question here is the morality of any campaign contributions which can be linked to a particular issue. The sums involved in any US election seem to be so huge that I wonder if any offer would be refused.

The UK does at least have strict spending limits in each constituency, and while contributions to the party as a whole are allowed, they are strictly scrutinised, and all hell breaks loose if anything dubious is detected. This, I think, is as it should be.

The accountability of civil servants is a different issue, HB, and I think this is more what is at stake in the question of wind farms etc.

I'm surprised that you consider yourself so much better informed than the investors, government etc. pdrhaps they were all in on the scam...

I am not an expert on all aspects of energy production and distribution, but I have spent many years building power stations, transmission lines and the like - sometimes on the contractor's side, sometimes on the investor's. Although mainly gas-fired plants, there have also been coal-fired and hydro plants in my CV (plus a lot of other structures), covering much of the world.

Believe me, wind farms are not the way of the future. The inclusion of wave power, tidal power, solar power, geo-thermal power and other locally available facilities may be developed and incorporated in an all-embracing scheme, but in 10-15 years many wind-farms will be past their shelf-life and no new ones will be built. This is a short-term panic measure brought about by people who are not aware of the full consequences of producing, erecting and using these monstrosities.