> underfunding public institutions in ways that drive them towards other sources of funding and outside influence by those with power and capital is not accidental, it is intentional.

You fail to address the question in my earlier comment: what's the difference between:

1. a company being forced to pay taxes to the local government, and the local government using that to fund the police

2. a company being forced to pay the police

It adds a layer of indirection which helps prevent moral hazard. If the company pays taxes to the local government, and the local government pays the police department, AND the company is not allowed to pay the police department directly, there is less possibility for the company to incentivize particular behaviors.

The police budget should be set by the local government, breaking protestor lines should not come with rewards provided by a private company, that investigating regular public crimes would not have.

> It adds a layer of indirection which helps prevent moral hazard. If the company pays taxes to the local government, and the local government pays the police department, AND the company is not allowed to pay the police department directly, there is less possibility for the company to incentivize particular behaviors.

According to the article there's already a layer of indirection.

"independent account manager allocates the funds"

What's the difference between "independent account manager" and "local government" in this case? Moreover, what can either party do to influence the police's behavior? Does having "evil pipeline co." on the check make the police chief more willing to beat up protesters or something?

>The police budget should be set by the local government

Considering that the payment is being forced by the utility commission, I doubt the local government is able to spend the money as they see fit (ie. spend it on schools rather than police). For all intents and purposes their budget-setting ability is fairly limited.

>breaking protestor lines should not come with rewards provided by a private company, that investigating regular public crimes would not have.

Is there any indication that's the case? As far as I understand it the utility commission is forcing the pipeline company to give the police a given amount, and the pipeline is complying with that requirement. Is the pipline company setting a bounty per protester beaten up or something?

> What's the difference between "independent account manager" and "local government" in this case? Moreover, what can either party do to influence the police's behavior? Does having "evil pipeline co." on the check make the police chief more willing to beat up protesters or something?

Local government is partly elected, and beholden to its citizens. The independent account manager is neither. Furthermore, the article states that the company pays for overtime and such, so yes, they're directly paying to those more willing spend time on the matter, and can directly incentivise them.

>Local government is partly elected, and beholden to its citizens. The independent account manager is neither.

but the police chief is still beholden to its citizens? I'm still not clear on how the pipeline company being forced to fund them makes them beholden to the pipeline company. Suppose the pipeline company was forced to pay me $10k/month. Does that mean I'll be beholden to them? If rather than wiring the money directly to my account, they wire it to a shell company, and the shell company wires it to me, does that make me beholden to the shell company? Would you support the pipeline company funding the police anonymously using cash?

>Furthermore, the article states that the company pays for overtime and such

that's actually the more reasonable concern here, if you assume that more time on patrol = more protesters beaten up and/or civil rights violated. However, if that's actually the case my I'd be more concerned about why that's the way in the first place.

I didn't fail to, I didn't even try to.

1 - there is a process of public representation and societal input via elected government representatives, transparency, equality, and indirectness. EVERYONE pays the local government which then decides on priorities and apportions funds. Their taxes, like your and my taxes, go to all government services not just police.

2 - does not and is effectively equivalent to paying protection money to the mob.

I'll be honest that I don't see this point as a good faith argument. Unless you are making some societal critique here on the number of governmental functions, up to and including aesthetic preferences for hair styles [0], that US society assigns to police fundamentally usurps the process of democracy?

[0] https://centralrecorder.com/mom-calls-police-after-17-year-o...

> I didn't fail to, I didn't even try to.

So you're just going to ignore an entirely valid concern?

>1 - there is a process of public representation and societal input via elected government representatives, transparency, equality, and indirectness. EVERYONE pays the local government which then decides on priorities and apportions funds. Their taxes, like your and my taxes, go to all government services not just police.

you seem to arguing for something entirely different. rather than the pipeline company paying $x to fund the police department, you want the pipeline company to pay $x the local government so they can fund schools or whatever. While that's a reasonable demand, it's also entirely separate from what's actually happening (ie. the utilities commission requiring the pipeline company to fund the police so taxpayers aren't on the hook to secure their pipelines). It's not really "oh no the police are corrupt because the pipeline company is paying for them!", it's more "oh no the pipeline company isn't funding local government services!".

>2 - does not and is effectively equivalent to paying protection money to the mob.

I'm not sure what's the point you're trying to make here. Is the government the bad guy here for making the pipeline company pay police for protection? I'm sure the pipeline company would be happy to get rid of an expense.