<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Money Talks Louder</title>
	<atom:link href="https://thegabbler.com/drawn-aside/2014/04/04/money-talks-louder/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://thegabbler.com/drawn-aside/2014/04/04/money-talks-louder/</link>
	<description>Just Goosing Around</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 May 2014 04:06:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Buying Influence &#171; THE GABBLER</title>
		<link>https://thegabbler.com/drawn-aside/2014/04/04/money-talks-louder/#comment-8441</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Buying Influence &#171; THE GABBLER]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2014 23:58:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thegabbler.com/?p=2905#comment-8441</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] One of the most significant arguments contained in Supreme Court&#8217;s recent decisions on campaign finance is the narrow definition of corruption. Chief Justice John Roberts writes that the Court can only concern itself with &#8220;quid pro quo&#8221; corruption. While he doesn&#8217;t define exactly what it is, he makes clear that their definition doesn&#8217;t include buying influence, access or ingratiation, and doesn&#8217;t consider the possibility of any privileged treatment or &#8220;return on investment&#8221; as a result. Last week&#8217;s cartoon was also on the Supreme Court decision. [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] One of the most significant arguments contained in Supreme Court&#8217;s recent decisions on campaign finance is the narrow definition of corruption. Chief Justice John Roberts writes that the Court can only concern itself with &#8220;quid pro quo&#8221; corruption. While he doesn&#8217;t define exactly what it is, he makes clear that their definition doesn&#8217;t include buying influence, access or ingratiation, and doesn&#8217;t consider the possibility of any privileged treatment or &#8220;return on investment&#8221; as a result. Last week&#8217;s cartoon was also on the Supreme Court decision. [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
