|
Green Crayons posted:Writing a judicial opinion that correctly states the position of at least five different Justices, that accurately cites precedent, that is not filled with grammatical/citation errors, and that responds to the dissent, is not a task that is accomplished quickly. This is particularly the case when the subject matter is complex and difficult. And by all accounts the Court doesn't really hold opinions until the last day so they can escape D.C. or something. Thanks for your answer and explanation. This is always an informative thread.
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 17:58 |
|
|
ColonelDimak posted:This was the question I was going to ask. Can congress pass a law limiting amount of funds a candidate can accept/have used on their behalf? Davis v. Federal Election Commission makes it unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
AtraMorS posted:Yes, and the person who sits in the defendant's box is still a pretty important legal difference. A white registrar is going to have a very different experience in a Jim Crow-era courtroom than a black person would (they'd probably have better access to legal counsel as well, although that's rather beside the point). Likewise, if you're going to argue that the outcomes are the same, you'd have to ignore the disparate prison demographics that result from attacking recipients vs. initiators. Not from the perspective of whether the law impacts the constitutional right to vote or obtain an abortion, which was kind of the key. Pretend the penalty is that the vote is thrown out and nothing else. Now tell me the difference again? If you make it illegal to accept a donation, then yes, the politician is the violator rather than the donor, but EITHER WAY the donor can't donate. If donation is protected speech, how you restrain it is irrelevant to the analysis of whether the right is restrained. It might change any relevant government interests, but that was neither plead here nor is it at all apparent how it'd be different. But either way, the constitutional right is still violated.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Radish posted:Right now it's a coin flip. It was a coin flip before this decision. The flood of money into Senate races will push the odds strongly in the Republicans favor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:It was a coin flip before this decision. The flood of money into Senate races will push the odds strongly in the Republicans favor. Sure helped president Romney.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Sure helped president Romney. It has much greater impact the lower the turnout. AKA during midterms.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
McAlister posted:The religious beliefs of the person who withheld $10 of my compensation and sent it to a PBM to secure my access to rebates/discounts are a matter of no consequence whatsoever. The idea that the PBM should be bullied into denying me personally rebates that *I've paid for access to* because of the church the errand boy/employer who walked my membership fee from here to there is beyond absurd. It's not about the money though; it's about women getting contraception at all. The goal is not to avoid paying for contraception: the goal is to keep their employees from getting it however they can. From Hobby lobby's point of view, even being the middle-man between rebates and customers is "supporting contraception" because it makes it easier for women to get it than forcing the PBM to reject it does. If they could legally fire women for being seen buying Plan B, they would. Remember, there is right now a court case by nuns who do not even want to opt out of the contraception mandate by submitting a statement saying "We object to covering contraception on reigious grounds" and nothing else, because the government will cover their employees' contraception as a result. Even though, obviously, it's the only way for the government to know they are refusing the mandate on religious grounds and thus are not subject to the tax penalty. They don't even want to tell HHS that they object to contraception because HHS will give those women contraceptives and we can't have that! They're basically suing to prevent the government from enforcing the contraception mandate at all, on anyone, by making it impossible to tell who has religious objections and who doesn't. Or alternatively, for the government to not give religious groups' employees contraception, I guess. I mean, they really want loose women to be stoned in the public square of course, but for now they're just yelling and screaming to stop the government from giving someone else contraception without any involvement of a religious objector at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
Zombie Samurai posted:Is there any way to write new legislation to regulate campaign financing without running afoul of the court's current view on the issue? Or is buying elections now a feature, not a bug? Citizens United specifically included, and to some degree defended itself, by leaving the door wide open for really stringent transparency and disclosure requirements. Whether those occur is an open question, but it appears unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Oh, I'm serious as an out-of-pocket heart attack.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Citizens United specifically included, and to some degree defended itself, by leaving the door wide open for really stringent transparency and disclosure requirements. Whether those occur is an open question, but it appears unlikely. I'm sure effective disclosure requirements will be upheld until the precise minute they bother a major Republican donor. why yes, I am more cynical about campaign finance than almost any other issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The Court has historically drawn a distinction on spending independent of candidates and giving candidates a big fat check directly, and been more willing to uphold restrictions on the latter. Slate Action posted:Let me put it this way: Obama better buy a new 'VETO' stamp. OneEightHundred fucked around with this message at 01:28 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Not from the perspective of whether the law impacts the constitutional right to vote or obtain an abortion, which was kind of the key. Pretend the penalty is that the vote is thrown out and nothing else. Now tell me the difference again? Nonetheless, if you forced me to choose--gun to my head, no third option, pick-one-or-everyone-dies kind of thing--between targeting minorities who try to vote or the registrars who accept their vote, I know exactly which one I would choose. It wouldn't even be close. I'd much rather have a handful of registrars in a state be unjustly prosecuted by a bigoted system than every single minority voter who was allowed access to a ballot. It comes off as callous to pretend that's not a "legal difference" because it sticks out to me as an awfully large difference in all but the most theoretical, ivory-tower-type hypotheticals.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
Yeah, we agree - my point was purely in regards to the question being asked re: constitutionality of a law preventing accepting donations vs preventing giving them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Yeah, we agree - my point was purely in regards to the question being asked re: constitutionality of a law preventing accepting donations vs preventing giving them.  . Sorry if I split a hair that didn't need splitting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
Kalman posted:If you make it illegal to accept a donation, then yes, the politician is the violator rather than the donor, but EITHER WAY the donor can't donate. If donation is protected speech, how you restrain it is irrelevant to the analysis of whether the right is restrained. It might change any relevant government interests, but that was neither plead here nor is it at all apparent how it'd be different. But either way, the constitutional right is still violated.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
Peaceful Anarchy posted:Is this really true? The right to speak is not the right to be heard. Based on the recipient's own personal decision to listen or not to listen, this is true.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 02:42
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Based on the recipient's own personal decision to listen or not to listen, this is true.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Seriously though, why not have the Chairman/CEO become Christian Scientist and do that? Previous discussion I've seen about the Hobby Lobby case has mentioned that one possibility is that the court could side with Hobby Lobby, but with the provision that religious exceptions only apply to closely-held companies. That approach does leave a lot of room for abuse (how would franchises be treated?), and given how the Roberts court has ruled in the past, I'm not terribly optimistic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
Peaceful Anarchy posted:As I understand it it's more than that, which is why there can be free speech zones and protest zones and similar restrictions. A law passed by congress restricting congressmen would be a self-imposed restriction, so even if congress can't restrict speech towards others they maybe could restrict speech directed at themselves? It would only be a matter of time until some candidate for Congress successfully argued that it violated their right of free association and we'd be back where we started.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
e: Nevermind, misread.
OneEightHundred fucked around with this message at 03:44 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:It would only be a matter of time until some candidate for Congress successfully argued that it violated their right of free association and we'd be back where we started. Exactly. Congress in its legislative capacity can't "voluntarily" waive the right of a candidate for Congress in his individual capacity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:I don't know how much will actually change considering it takes 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate these days. Lest you forget, the nuclear option has already been breached for judicial nominees. The microsecond it becomes inconvenient to them, Republicans will strip it entirely. I know, limits individual power, good ol' boys club, backroom deals, yadda yadda, but I really do think Republican lust for passing their poo poo will carry the day against systemic inertia, veto or not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:Lest you forget, the nuclear option has already been breached for judicial nominees. The microsecond it becomes inconvenient to them, Republicans will strip it entirely. Yes indeed. It's a certainty that the second the filibuster becomes political inconvenient for them in the Senate, the GOP will remove it and hammer in as much as they can with a 51 seat majority. It's a lot hard to fix their messes then it is to just burn everything to the ground so it's not like they really have anything to fear just going full crazy and passing every pipedream they want and then coasting on that while the Democrats try and fix stuff if they get a majority. Obama will probably let half of it pass in fear of being known as an extremest and not bipartisan. At this point I'm not even sure if the Democrats would do much to overturn their terrible legislation anyway so they have little to lose just going full evil and start looting the country for every penny.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
It is pretty unfortunate because Obama could easily argue that the "Davy Crockett" nuclear option of blasting the filibuster on judicial nominees is in the interest of actually maintaining the court system while the "Tsar Bomba" nuclear option the GOP will pull is all about just putting their jackboots on the necks of the American People And Their Legislative Process. He could just two-fist veto stamps and essentially force the GOP to find 60 votes on everything. He could also just say he'd gotten used to the tradition of 60 ayes for everything and just wants to make sure that tradition is kept intact as the Senate changes hands. But that's pretty douchey comedy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:It is pretty unfortunate because Obama could easily argue that the "Davy Crockett" nuclear option of blasting the filibuster on judicial nominees is in the interest of actually maintaining the court system while the "Tsar Bomba" nuclear option the GOP will pull is all about just putting their jackboots on the necks of the American People And Their Legislative Process. He could just two-fist veto stamps and essentially force the GOP to find 60 votes on everything. Doesn't change much, but overriding a veto is actually 67 votes (and 2/3 of the house). 60 votes is just to break a filibuster.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
The GOP would be justified in going nuclear, them going nuclear in 2014 would be great (because it abolishes the filibuster without any practical effects since Obama is still in office) because it would end the filibuster. The filibuster needs to go, and with its blood on everyone's hands it will probably stay dead. And nobody cares about procedural issues, even if Obama tried to make an issue of it voters wouldn't care.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
I am a little unclear on the latest ruling, with regards to campaign financing. Does this mean that you can just give whatever you want regardless and there are no restrictions, and since Corporations are considered for purposes of that people cna corporations just dump huge sums of money into races now?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:I am a little unclear on the latest ruling, with regards to campaign financing. Does this mean that you can just give whatever you want regardless and there are no restrictions, and since Corporations are considered for purposes of that people cna corporations just dump huge sums of money into races now? No. It means that the aggregate limits on contribution (total amount given to anyone over a timespan) are gone, but individual limits (max to give to a given candidate, committee, party, etc. per election cycle) are still there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Kalman posted:No. It means that the aggregate limits on contribution (total amount given to anyone over a timespan) are gone, but individual limits (max to give to a given candidate, committee, party, etc. per election cycle) are still there. This amounts to a practical removal of any limit on contributions, since it's just limited by how many shell entities you care to spin off. Which is basically just a tax in the form of administrative costs to pay lawyers to establish the shells. Since it's now obvious that the individual limits don't serve a legitimate government purpose (e: and are a restriction on 1a activity, per this and other precedents, so need to meet a certain burden to be constitutional as law), as they can be legally bypassed and just establish irrelevant red tape, the first legal challenge to them will sail through easily. 2016's gonna be a hell of a drug atelier morgan fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
New effective aggregate limit = (total number of party candidates at local, state, and federal levels) x (individual candidate limit) Yes?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
mdemone posted:New effective aggregate limit = (total number of party candidates at local, state, and federal level) x (individual candidate limit) This is how I've heard it will be used yes. So effectively they've nullified campaign finance limits entirely.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
mdemone posted:New effective aggregate limit = (total number of party candidates at local, state, and federal levels) x (individual candidate limit) Slight tweak to that: New effective aggregate limit = (total number of party candidates at federal levels + any PAC that anyone runs be it candidate or party) x (individual candidate limit) And yes, it completely nullified federal campaign finance laws.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Slight tweak to that: Fuckin' peachy. Thanks for clarifying.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
McAlister posted:1- by threatening to use another PBM they forced PBM's to give their employees fewer rebate/discounts *for the same membership fee*. Effectively stealing and shredding their employee rebate checks. The first rule of using acronyms is to first establish what the acronyms means. YYNBBGFRT
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Duke Igthorn posted:The first rule of using acronyms is to first establish what the acronyms means. YYNBBGFRT Uh, he did?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
UberJew posted:This amounts to a practical removal of any limit on contributions, since it's just limited by how many shell entities you care to spin off. Which is basically just a tax in the form of administrative costs to pay lawyers to establish the shells. Not quite. Because PACs have limits on how they contribute/spend, and those limits can be imputed to individuals in some circumstances, you can't just form "perry pac1" through "perrypac100000" and contribute money to each of them. It's definitely not a good thing but it isn't going to be anywhere near as easy as you paint it to evade. Of course it will also somewhat rely on the FEC being effective so... Yeah, it's not a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 09:19
|
|
|
UberJew posted:This amounts to a practical removal of any limit on contributions, since it's just limited by how many shell entities you care to spin off. Which is basically just a tax in the form of administrative costs to pay lawyers to establish the shells. That's how it was pre-Citizen's United though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 12:45
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That's how it was pre-Citizen's United though. Yeah, Citizen's United wasn't anywhere near as big a deal as it gets painted. Campaign finance was already an absolutely irredeemable mess before then. This is actually a worse decision than Citizen's United was, by a lot! Kalman posted:Not quite. Because PACs have limits on how they contribute/spend, and those limits can be imputed to individuals in some circumstances, you can't just form "perry pac1" through "perrypac100000" and contribute money to each of them. While true I don't think you can defend those PAC regulations in the courts any more, because if capping an individuals aggregate contributions is unconstitutional then you've undercut the justifications for those regulations. Also the smart money is on a switch from super PACs to super JFCs as the soft money vehicle of choice to better exploit the current regulatory framework, since they can now directly take $1.2m per individual donor, instead of being capped to $70k. I expect a challenge to base limits (the majority opinion draws the direct parallel and Thomas calls for it explicitly in his concurrence) to work its way through the courts and a follow up decision revoking those with similar reasoning in 2015 or 2016. That's the power of having defined corruption as quid pro quo agreements and only quid pro agreements. e: On the other hand that might fail even though it is an obvious and direct result of the reasoning in this ruling because Kennedy's a giant hypocrite. Who knows? atelier morgan fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Apr 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
CU was bad because it was a sign of things to come.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 17:58 |
|
|
This is probably a dumb question, but is there a danger that these recent cases are going to undermine minority-shareholder protections? I'm imagining a scenario where someone has $X to spend on politics. They could donate it. Or they could buy a controlling stake in a company worth more than $X. It seems like they'd have an incentive to do that, use their controlling share to declare that the corporation has deeply held political beliefs in support of some party. And then they could vote to direct the whole amount of the corporation's assets into one party's political campaign. Normally, I'd expect anyone who tried this to get sued for a breach of fiduciary duty; they'd be overtly abusing their position as a corporate officer to advance a personal agenda at the expense of shareholders. But, depending on the outcomes of some of these cases, it's not clear that rabid republicanism (or whatever) would be a personal agenda.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 17:22
|
|
