New Orleans      In recent weeks we have been treated to an amazing display of corporate obsequiousness, as tech, media, and other huge enterprises pivot to please newly ensconced President Trump.  Bending the knee, kissing the ring, sucking up, anticipatory obedience, or whatever you want to call these performances, it has been a mind-boggling display of the hollow center of late-stage capitalism in the United States, the likes of which many the most cynical still find surprising.  As incredible as all of this seems, I can’t help feeling there’s a much darker side to it all.

It’s worth remembering the definition of a bribe.  Oxford says it’s an effort to “persuade (someone) to act in one’s favor, typically illegally or dishonestly, by a gift of money or other inducement.”  Cornell’s Legal Information Institute adds,

Bribery refers to the offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving of any item of value as a means of influencing the actions of an individual holding a public or legal duty . This type of action results in matters that should be handled objectively being handled in a manner best suited to the private interests of the decision maker. As such, bribery constitutes a crime and both the offeror and the recipient can be criminally charged .

Keeping this in mind, let’s look at some of the current efforts to curry favor with Trump.

Mark Zuckerberg and Meta/Facebook joined the tech supplicants in throwing in a million bucks for Trump’s inauguration in a pretty straight forward business transaction, perhaps.  Suddenly settling a suit that they have defended vigorously since 2021 when Trump filed against their blocking his account from Facebook and Instagram for defying their rules by giving him $25 million now that he’s in the White House, looks more like a bribe to me.  Are they pretending that their rules of service written by an army of lawyers has no meaning, and that they have no right to delete whomever they choose?  Of course not!

ABC News suddenly after the election throws George Stephanopoulos under the bus for a interview with Trump about his loss of the sexual assault case brought by Jean Carroll, objecting to him saying Trump had raped Carroll, even though a judge in 2023 had determined that was “substantially true.”  Now ABC has rushed to settle and give $15 million to his future presidential library, pay $1 million for his legal fees, and apologize to the bully.  It’s not going directly into Trump’s wallet, but come on, man, what’s up.

Paramount, the owner of CBS, is doing the same in trying to settle another frivolous suit from Trump about an episode of “60 Minutes,” that offended him.   The show’s producer says he won’t apologize, but the owner is desperate to have a merger go through without any problems from the new administration, so she’s signalling that it’s worth paying Trump millions so she can collect billions.

Then take Elon Musk, please!  The $288 million investment in Trump’s campaign was not just about Musk’s far-right ideology, given his multiple business conflicts of interest with the government.  The ethics challenges of Trump’s appointees are also legion.  It also almost goes without saying that Trump has not clarified his ethics standards for this term.  “President Trump, as well, has already made clear that he sees nothing wrong with taking official government acts that could benefit his family’s finances….”

Some might say none of these transactions have the stench of bribery on them, but, instead, are simply the price of doing business with the new regime.  If so, the integrity of journalism, free speech, an independent media, and more are then revealed as simple fictions by cowering corporations pretending to be something other than craven money machines.  How are any of these so-called “settlements” anything other than “…receiving of any item of value as a means of influencing the actions of an individual holding a public or legal duty . This type of action results in matters that should be handled objectively being handled in a manner best suited to the private interests of the decision maker.”  Or, in other words, by definition, bribery.  I’m having trouble seeing it any other way.