Joe Biden has voted in the interests of corporate donors

The argument

Joe Biden has a history of taking large campaign contributions and paying them back in the form of votes that do not benefit ordinary Americans. The credit card company MBNA was a major financial supporter of Biden, providing him with over $200,000 in campaign funds in the two decades leading up to his election as Vice President. Whilst Joe Biden’s son Hunter was earning an undisclosed amount in a consulting role at MBNA, Joe Biden supported and authored legislation promoted by the credit card industry and opposed by consumer groups. Not only did the bill make it harder for Americans to reduce their debts, Biden split with Obama on this issue, who voted against it. Biden has also received large donations from major corporations, and told Wall Street supporters that “nothing would fundamentally change” for them if he became president. Corporate donors do not contribute huge sums to politicians for nothing - they expect to receive benefit in the form of favourable policies and legislation. By accepting so much money from corporate interests, Biden is betraying his voters and acting out of corrupt self-interest.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Joe Biden’s support of the bill backed by the credit card industry was not a result of Hunter’s employment or their financial support - he wanted to support a large employer based in his home state. It is not corrupt for politicians to establish good relationships with businesses to support jobs and prosperity. We should also not criticise campaigns for accepting large donations - this should be seen as a positive endorsement of their policies.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The sequence establishes coincidence rather than exchange. MBNA was among the largest private employers in the senator's home state, which the counter-argument on record identifies as the ordinary explanation for a legislator supporting an industry concentrated there, and the argument offers no evidence of an agreement — which is what a corruption allegation requires. [Rejecting P2] The Wall Street remark is being asked to carry a great deal. Read in context it is a statement about not seeking to expropriate donors, which is a policy position rather than an admission, and disagreeing with it is a political objection rather than a charge of corruption. [Rejecting P3] The inference that donors expect favourable policy in return is the premise doing all the work, and stated generally it would make every campaign contribution in the system evidence of corruption — including donations to the argument's preferred candidates. Political science on the question has consistently found it difficult to demonstrate that contributions change votes rather than following legislators who already hold the donor's position. [Rejecting C] The counter goes further and argues that large donations are better read as endorsements of an existing platform than as purchases of one. The bankruptcy legislation is a fair target for criticism on its merits — and the split with Obama's vote is a real difference — but criticising a vote is not the same as establishing that it was bought.