Supreme Court strikes cap on aggregate political contributions

[BenBurch]

BTW, I am expecting some serious hacking of the finances of known large GOP donors.

I also expect some people to go to jail for doing so. (And they should.)

But the furor over this is too intense for this to go by without somebody trying that.

 

[Bogative]

I wonder what Roberts was paid?

The same amount he was paid for his NFIB vs Sebelius vote.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

part of critical thinking is to know the data.

Part of critical thinking is to supply the data to back up ones claim.

 

[negativ]

Why?

Ya don't suppose it would be useful to know if a particular hypothetical presidential candidate was being funded by a country we were at war with? Or by a foreign business whose interests are contrary to the US? Suppose it's the year 2000 and Osama bin Laden has magnanimously decided to pump a few million into some candidate's pocket. Should the peasantry have a right to this information, or is it best left to the landed gentry?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Ya don't suppose it would be useful to know if a particular hypothetical presidential candidate was being funded by a country we were at war with? Or by a foreign business whose interests are contrary to the US? Suppose it's the year 2000 and Osama bin Laden has magnanimously decided to pump a few million into some candidate's pocket. Should the peasantry have a right to this information, or is it best left to the landed gentry?

CT forum is thataway =======>

 

[Alferd_Packer]

I wonder what Roberts Ginny Thomas was paid?

FTFY

 

[Brown]

If you are monumentally stupid, you would throw a pile of money on an elected official's desk and say, "If you want this money, vote against the new gas tax." This is still illegal, because it is what is called quid pro quo corruption: "a direct exchange of an official act for money." You can't do that. It's corruption and it's illegal.

But remember, only the monumentally stupid use quid pro quo. According to the Chief Justice, this is the ONLY kind of corruption that Congress can outlaw. As Chief Justice Roberts observed: "Congress may target only a specific type of corruption—'quid pro quo' corruption." Congress may also act to avoid the appearance of corruption, but it may ONLY act to prevent the appearance of quid pro quo corruption.

Also, it is perfectly okay for a politician to listen only to those that wish to donate money, and to show gratitude for a donor's donation by voting in the way the donor wants: "(G)overnment regulation may not target the general gratitude a candidate may feel toward those who support him or his allies, or the political access such support may afford."

So the correct (and constitutionally protected) procedure is to throw a pile of money on an elected official's desk and say something like this: "Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to give me access to you. Here is a pile of money. If you'd like to show your gratitude, vote against the gas tax. Of course, you get to keep the money regardless of which way you vote, but--SAY!--aren't you going to be running for reelection next year?"

In other words, don't be monumentally stupid. Don't say that your money is in exchange for a political favor. Instead, use the wink, wink method of getting your message across and you'll be just fine. And don't worry, this isn't corruption. The drafters of the Constitution had exactly this sort of governmental operation in mind.

 

[theprestige]

Ya don't suppose it would be useful to know if a particular hypothetical presidential candidate was being funded by a country we were at war with? Or by a foreign business whose interests are contrary to the US? Suppose it's the year 2000 and Osama bin Laden has magnanimously decided to pump a few million into some candidate's pocket. Should the peasantry have a right to this information, or is it best left to the landed gentry?

Foreign campaign contributions are illegal in the US. Those funds would be laundered through middlemen who could safely report them.

"We're at war with Pantsganistan; good thing our laws require them to tell us when they're trying to influence our elections!"

 

[thaiboxerken]

Part of critical thinking is to supply the data to back up ones claim.

Data, you mean like who is donating money to political campaigns?

Tell me, would you mind if our political campaigns were accepting money from China?

 

[theprestige]

Data, you mean like who is donating money to political campaigns?

Tell me, would you mind if our political campaigns were accepting money from China?

If our political campaigns were accepting money from China <cough>, they wouldn't declare it, because it's illegal. It's like saying customs regulations will make people declare illegal imports, or tax regulations will make people declare illegal revenues.

 

[thaiboxerken]

If our political campaigns were accepting money from China <cough>, they wouldn't declare it, because it's illegal. It's like saying customs regulations will make people declare illegal imports, or tax regulations will make people declare illegal revenues.

Which is why there needs to be transparency and accountability for all political donations.

 

[Brown]

The following, from Chief Justice Roberts's plurality opinion, makes my head spin. I cannot tell whether the statement is made with irony, chutzpah or plain old idiocy.

Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects. If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades—despite the profound offense such spectacles cause—it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.

Got that? Money is "political speech." Not only that, money is on the same footing as unpopular political speech.

The mind boggles. The cases involving unpopular speech do not involve expression of views of the powerful and established. It's the other way around. Unpopular speech offends those who have power and establishment. That's why such speech is unpopular in the first place. But in this case, those WITH power want to have a bigger say than everybody else. So can anyone see what might be a wee bit odd about what Chief Justice Roberts said?

Next time you have to pay a bill, try to pay it by talking. If the creditor objects, tell him that the Supreme Court equates money with speech and see how far it gets you.

 

[Cain]

If you are monumentally stupid, you would throw a pile of money on an elected official's desk and say, "If you want this money, vote against the new gas tax." This is still illegal, because it is what is called quid pro quo corruption: "a direct exchange of an official act for money." You can't do that. It's corruption and it's illegal.

Why should we outlaw quid-pro-quo corruption? If a politician acts contrary to the interests of his or her constituents, then those people need to vote her/him out of office. If they refuse to vote out their legislator, or if they're unaware of the "corruption," then they get what they deserve.

It's kind of sad how activists can take the "moral high-ground" on this issue when the people who own the country clearly ought to run it.

 

[BobTheCoward]

In other words, don't be monumentally stupid. Don't say that your money is in exchange for a political favor. Instead, use the wink, wink method of getting your message across and you'll be just fine. And don't worry, this isn't corruption. The drafters of the Constitution had exactly this sort of governmental operation in mind.

Money for an election is no different than people in a district saying they are going to campaign for the other guy if the elected official votes the other way.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Data, you mean like who is donating money to political campaigns?

Tell me, would you mind if our political campaigns were accepting money from China?

Nope. In fact, they probably already are.

 

[3point14]

IMO transparency matters more than dollar figures. There is a compelling national interest in knowing how campaigns are funded. This I believe has been upheld several times.

Campaigns are now free to make documentaries/infomercials on "where the money comes from" and air them at any time. There will always be shell games played by both sides to appear transparent; they get to debunk each other.

Why?

Ya don't suppose it would be useful to know if a particular hypothetical presidential candidate was being funded by a country we were at war with? Or by a foreign business whose interests are contrary to the US? Suppose it's the year 2000 and Osama bin Laden has magnanimously decided to pump a few million into some candidate's pocket. Should the peasantry have a right to this information, or is it best left to the landed gentry?

CT forum is thataway =======>

I thought I'd post the whole thing, just to show either the lack of thinking or the rank dishonesty from Mr Scrutiniser. I don't think it requires much explanation when you read the thing in full, but let's just examine it for a moment.


When he asked why one would want to know where campaign donations should not be anonymous, TCS was presented with a list of really bad things, that, while not proposed by the writer to be happening at all, would be something the US public would want to know to be able to cast their vote with some confidence.

TCS has then immediately moved to the last post, directing someone suggesting perfectly possible but slightly extreme answers that are obviously fictional examples of a bad thing to demonstrate the purpose of transparency to the conspiracy theory forum.

I think this shows either a lack of ability to follow the conversation or, possibly, utter dishonesty. Either way I thought I'd highlight it as a terribly weasley method of debate. Stoppit.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Time to double down on one of the strategies that failed to get Romney elected last time?

Fortunately, not all is lost.

However, the same is not true at the state or local level. A last minute 'gotcha' the opposition doesn't have massive funds to respond to, gerrymandering the whole country red, numerous efforts of voter suppression and disenfranchisement, and stacking the deck on SCOTUS are taking a serious minority-rule toll.

I wonder what Roberts was paid?

FTFY

Alferd is right. Thomas via his wife took direct payments from pro-CU group and the conversation was, SCOTUS is really on the bribery honor system.

Ya don't suppose it would be useful to know if a particular hypothetical presidential candidate was being funded by a country we were at war with? Or by a foreign business whose interests are contrary to the US? Suppose it's the year 2000 and Osama bin Laden has magnanimously decided to pump a few million into some candidate's pocket. Should the peasantry have a right to this information, or is it best left to the landed gentry?

Foreign campaign contributions are illegal in the US. Those funds would be laundered through middlemen who could safely report them.
"We're at war with Pantsganistan; good thing our laws require them to tell us when they're trying to influence our elections!"

Maybe the Bircher/McCarthyism Commie paranoia had a silver lining. Someone needs to remind the Kochs of this monster they are feeding.

WSJ: Charles Koch: I'm Fighting to Restore a Free Society

The insight that man lacks is mind boggling. Free society to him is his unfettered freedom. For the masses, not so much.

 

[Beerina]

Fortunately, not all is lost.

However, the same is not true at the state or local level. A last minute 'gotcha' the opposition doesn't have massive funds to respond to, gerrymandering the whole country red, numerous efforts of voter suppression and disenfranchisement, and stacking the deck on SCOTUS are taking a serious minority-rule toll.

Alferd is right. Thomas via his wife took direct payments from pro-CU group and the conversation was, SCOTUS is really on the bribery honor system.



Maybe the Bircher/McCarthyism Commie paranoia had a silver lining. Someone needs to remind the Kochs of this monster they are feeding.

WSJ: Charles Koch: I'm Fighting to Restore a Free Society

The insight that man lacks is mind boggling. Free society to him is his unfettered freedom. For the masses, not so much.

Thank you for the article. I didn't know much about him, but he seems to be on the ball about the evils of government growth and why our nation's constitution was written as it is.

I like him more now than I did a few minutes ago.

I will never understand why people are not terrified of the concept of charismatic leaders leading masses on crusades that ignore constitutional propriety under the principle that, if you just rub your goateed chin hard enough, you can ignore the Constitution.

 

[luchog]

Finally, we'll have the best government that money can buy.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Thank you for the article. I didn't know much about him, but he seems to be on the ball about the evils of government growth and why our nation's constitution was written as it is.

I like him more now than I did a few minutes ago.

I will never understand why people are not terrified of the concept of charismatic leaders leading masses on crusades that ignore constitutional propriety under the principle that, if you just rub your goateed chin hard enough, you can ignore the Constitution.

Yeah right. McCarthy and the John Birch Society definitely knew about the evils infesting the government.

Perhaps a bit of history would be wise to review about now.