On Thursday, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced that it issued a proposal to rescind a rule prohibiting "investment advisers from providing compensated investment advisory services to a government client for two years after making a political contribution to certain elected officials or candidates. . . ."

This "pay-to-play" rule prohibits investment advisors from donating to a political candidate and then, within two years, getting paid to provide investment services to the government. In other words, it is meant to prevent people from buying the opportunity to get paid big bucks to manage government investments like public pension funds.

If this rule change sounds insane to you and like an open invitation for massive corruption, you are likely correct.

So, how did the SEC, which is ultimately overseen by President Donald Trump, explain this proposed rule change?

The Commission has determined that the political contribution rule, since its adoption in 2010, has led to significant unintended consequences, such as prohibitions by some advisers on political contributions at the state and local level. Advisers have indicated that the rule is operationally challenging to implement, and creates a de facto strict liability standard, which can lead to situations where small donations or “foot faults” potentially trigger substantial prohibitions and fines.

Despite the government's efforts to spin this proposal, it is indefensible. Assuming the SEC is correct that the rule had some unintended consequences, including small donations and minor technical violations resulting in unreasonable bans and fines, why is the solution to rescind the entire rule? Why not modify the rule to permit smaller donations that are unlikely to sway an elected official? Oh, there already are some exceptions like this in the rule?

Why not try anything else before simply greenlighting rich investment managers from essentially bribing government officials to hire them to manage government investments and enrich themselves further? Instead of hiring whomever seems best-qualified, government officials will be strongly incentivized to hire whoever writes them the biggest check at election time.

Nearly every day, the federal government does something to make me feel shame and embarrassment over being an American. Trump and his enablers are endlessly resourceful in opening up new avenues of corruption for shamelessly enriching themselves and their families and supporters.

This website could probably be devoted purely to unique examples of the Trump Administration's corruption. I have already written about no-bid contracts to political donors for unnecessary planes, international agreements directly benefitting Trump and company's children, no-bid contracts to pals for the reflecting pool renovation, a transparent government slush fund to reward political supporters and insurrectionists worth almost two billion dollars, and a deal to protect his family from any tax law prosecutions. And there are plenty more examples I have yet to touch on.

It is exhausting. It is demoralizing. It makes me feel like a moron for ever having believed in our system of government and the American people.

In a just and properly functioning society, this SEC rule change and all of the other individual examples of corruption I have highlighted would each be grounds for a swift impeachment for Trump and his complicit appointees. Almost 90% of Americans believe government corruption is rampant; yet, the power-hungry Republican sycophants in Congress refuse to do their duty, and almost nobody faces any repercussions.

Too many Americans are complacent, oblivious, easily-duped, or morally decrepit partisans. I suspect the average person will not hear of this rule change, and many that do will shrug or even make efforts to defend or distract from it. Our nation is civically rotten, and the rot is only worsening as we descend further into lawlessness and open corruption.