|
Evil Fluffy posted:You'll get 6-3 and 7-2 decisions that empower or protect law enforcement too. If civil forfeiture came before the SCOTUS I'd be amazed if it wasn't 8-1 or 7-2 supporting it with maybe RGB and/or Sotomayor against it. http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/SCOTUSblog_votesplit_OT13.pdf
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:57 |
|
|
how does the party allocate money to be spent on campaigns? What sort of actions are prohibited by law?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
joeburz posted:The younger DC Democrat crowd I know already scrubbed their poo poo years ago, despite being on the opening wave of facebook in 2003. Sure there will be plenty of train wrecks in the future but most the up and comers on the left are reasonably tech savvy, careful with their online posting, and also just not poo poo lords with disgusting opinions to tweet out slurs. Yeah, I feel like if you've got a credible chance of winning a seat at the state level you've probably been laying groundwork for a year or two before your election, so you've got plenty of time to get a handle on that stuff and you've probably been careful about what you post under what ID. By the time you're nearing the Congressional level you've been planning for several years and should have this poo poo on lockdown. Plus it's harder to go from RL => account than account => RL person. And if folks don't really know what they're looking for, well, it's a freaking huge internet. DoubleDonut posted:Yeah, some of these are pretty good! But I would also argue that most of these barely even count as progress - they might count as undoing a lot of bullshit, which has its own worth, but we are going to need more than that. In a vaccuum, yeah, the Fair Sentencing Act is great! But the War on Drugs is still hugely awful, so no, a bit of fairness involving cocaine doesn't count as half a win; it counts as a little bit less of a loss. I realize this is from earlier today and thus like 4 pages back, but honestly if you're expecting Obama to have rolled back all the poo poo from Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II, that's asking for a lot. When you realize he had only a few months where he had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and control of the House, you're talking about a legislative blitz comparable to, if not bigger than, FDR's 100 Days. And that's assuming Obama's got mind control powers over the Blue Dogs. The reason it took a freaking year to get Health Reform is that they couldn't even line up all the Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
American politics are weird. We have these threads where we lampoon everything, and we drink etc. I had just graduated high school when Clinton was elected president. I grew up with Reagan, then Bush #1. The country went loving nuts when Clinton won office, and it was a lot like Obama's first term. The Right wing outrage was everywhere, and you just knew he couldn't win a second term, because everyone hated him. Then when he won, the Right wing outrage machine went into full insanity mode. The same thing happened to Obama. I've watched this poo poo over the past 20 years and I don't even know what to think anymore. I have a high brow educated idea of what is going on, then I have a simply normal person idea of what is happening, and I have the LOL wtf GOP child portion. After 20 years, the LOL wtf GOP portion is winning. I can't even take this poo poo seriously anymore. Their outrage is amazing. We joke about Behghazi because it is loving stupid, but if you really think about it, they are having another investigation and it is simply unexplainable. Gay Obama, Moochelle, birth certificate... if you really think about how terrible Republican voters are, you will probably just sink into depression and drink too much. This isn't even the crazy stuff, this is stuff that has been in the national media and covered as serious news. Maybe not the Moochelle part, that is just something every racist hick seems to need to post when she talks about salad. Pohl fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
Miltank posted:how does the party allocate money to be spent on campaigns? What sort of actions are prohibited by law? Hahahahahahaha. Hahaha. Hah. Oh, you'll.... Do you want to know? I mean, really want to know? Seriously though, get specific. What's the level of the race? Competitiveness of the seat? Relation between you and the state party boss? Who's your patron? Is your party in power in that state? How essential is winning the seat to achieving your party's agenda? How much are you able to fundraise yourself? Hint: its only illegal if you get caught and there's an undeniable paper trail.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
Yeah for example the 19 year old idiot I posted about posted those things under accounts where the username was his name.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
If you're not 16 and have to go the party PC route you also need to make up that lost time by A) already being rich, or B) successful in whatever you spent your 20s and 30s doing instead of working for the party. Party politics is about time put in for the organization and contacts, so you need to play catch-up with cash if you didn't spend all those youthful years doing bullshit and star loving.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Our laws are really convulted, and 3rd parties often can't even get their name on the ballot. They can't get access to debates... etc. We have two parties and they both suck. If we had a parliamentary system the Congressional Progressive Caucus would be it's own party. Conservadems would have more excuses to work against them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Hint: its only illegal if you get caught and there's an undeniable paper trail.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Yeah for example the 19 year old idiot I posted about posted those things under accounts where the username was his name.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:If you're not 16 and have to go the party PC route you also need to make up that lost time by A) already being rich, or B) successful in whatever you spent your 20s and 30s doing instead of working for the party. Party politics is about time put in for the organization and contacts, so you need to play catch-up with cash if you didn't spend all those youthful years doing bullshit and star loving. He means literal star loving. Whoring yourself out is a well-known career move in politics, and in some circles, expected more than the exception. It depends. E: Samurai Sanders posted:Well, having party members caught robbing the other party's offices at night proved to be...kinda sorta illegal? Its not the act that gets you, its the failed coverup when you have enemies making a power play against you that does. And in general, the answer to that specific question is, 'it depends.' Do you control the investigator? The judge? Will it go anywhere? Can you blame it upon an 'independent contractor' used by a subcontracted employment firm with minimized relation to you? See also, for Illinois, Rauner hiring folks to intimidate petition signers with guns. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
are you dnd superstar brianboyko? e:fb Miltank fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF, your political insider info is depressing.Pohl posted:American politics are weird. We have these threads where we lampoon everything, and we drink etc. Man... Clinton and Obama were really lucky to have clowns like Dole, McCain and Romney to run against.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
Ninjasaurus posted:My Imaginary GF, your political insider info is depressing. And I haven't even gotten into detailing the 100% legal ways to NOT COORDINATE CAMPAIGNS WHATSOEVER or how to reshore foreign government's money for use in your campaign.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
ErichZahn posted:If we had a parliamentary system the Congressional Progressive Caucus would be it's own party. Conservadems would have more excuses to work against them. The entire blue dog democrat thing that happened a few years ago was horrible. You are exactly right.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
Ok so what aspects of the government are not de facto controlled by the two political parties? e:aspects not branches
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Ok so what branches of the government are not de facto controlled by the two political parties. China? E: "De facto controlled" and "government" are an oxymoron. There is no control; its all about personal relations, networking, favors due, favors owed. Depending upon the national administration at various levels, you'll find individuals promoted at a faster rate than others, which is what national elections truly decide That's right. What you're really voting for when you vote, is whether you want individuals with professed D or professed R views promoted at a faster rate than their colleagues. This applies to all levels of government, and in some private institutions as well. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
Ninjasaurus posted:My Imaginary GF, your political insider info is depressing. Yeah, and Gore still lost to Bush #2 because the Republicans cheat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:China? but seriously.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
Miltank posted:but seriously. No, I was being serious. That's a major issue at a certain high level of play. If you have any questions about finance, specific questions, I'll gladly answer them to the best of my ability to recall details at this time. Or, I could write up a methodology you can use to determine which staffer has influence with which elites in America so that you can use that staffer's employment through the years as a proxy for presidential ambition and which clustered networks are backing whom for president. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 06:23 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Ok so what aspects of the government are not de facto controlled by the two political parties? The executive is never controlled by the two political parties at once  Miltank posted:but seriously. There are lots of federal bureaucracies that are insulated from political hiring or decisionmaking. There are numerous states that have local or statewide non-partisan boards, commissions, and judges.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
so how exactly are politics even an option if everything is so corrupt?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
Miltank posted:so how exactly are politics even an option if everything is so corrupt? How is power distributed in a system that uses power to change itself? Politics is. Edit: As much as people complain about Obama getting nothing done. I'm pretty sure he's done more than he'd ever have done if he had taken up arms.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
Perhaps everything is hopeless and you should just follow politics to laugh at the absurdities. Makes ya think....
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
Back to the young GOP candidate pulling out over racist tweets coming out, I am guessing that he never had a shot anyways. There's always some way too ambitious teenager that burns themselves in the very first thing they run for and then spends the rest of their life on the outside the party trying, and failing, to win some minor non-partisan position every cycle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
Miltank posted:so how exactly are politics even an option if everything is so corrupt? Serious answer: the alternative is worse. In this system, at least sometimes money accrues back down rather solely concentrated at the top. I recommend you give a read to Plinkitt ot Tammany Hall as a good primer for how well-functioning politics work. Do you think we'd have unions without political parties realizing their value in independently organizing? I did some studies on Ike's use of the interstate system to pass de-segregation in the military. And once the military was fully de-segregated, equal rights were only a matter of time. E: Berke Negri posted:Back to the young GOP candidate pulling out over racist tweets coming out, I am guessing that he never had a shot anyways. There's always some way too ambitious teenager that burns themselves in the very first thing they run for and then spends the rest of their life on the outside the party trying, and failing, to win some minor non-partisan position every cycle. No kidding. I know a kid being groomed to replace a Senator or above, depending what he wants when. He's a good kid because he's been playing the game since 10 in a politically-connected family with a machine behind him, bipartisan appeal from his home region, and by 22 has already managed several-B in assets at a pension fund. That's how you do it if you're personally too toxic and too late to play. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 06:33 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Serious answer: the alternative is worse. In this system, at least sometimes money accrues back down rather solely concentrated at the top. Plus, until rather recently we could achieve policy that was broadly supported.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Ok so what aspects of the government are not de facto controlled by the two political parties? Local and national politics are different, but people tend to vote strictly along party lines. I currently live in Idaho, so I can talk about it. If it isn't the most conservative state, it is in the top 2. However, Boise has a Democratic Mayor. The people in Boise are still really Conservative assholes, but they have come to understand the value of community. Hence, the Democratic Mayor. The divide in this country is between rural and urban. Look at Austin, Salt Lake, Boise... cities in very conservative states, yet these cities aren't what you would call conservative. They vote Liberally, they want services, they understand community.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Plus, until rather recently we could achieve policy that was broadly supported. We still can, according to polling. People aren't willing to let it be messaged in a way that'd pass it. See also: the back-and-forth I had with SedanChair in the chat thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:We still can, according to polling. People aren't willing to let it be messaged in a way that'd pass it. See also: the back-and-forth I had with SedanChair in the chat thread. I'm talking about at the federal level particularly. I agree the public supports a wide swath of policies, but those policies won't pass congress. Gerrymandering is a big part of the problem there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'm talking about at the federal level particularly. I agree the public supports a wide swath of policies, but those policies won't pass congress. Gerrymandering is a big part of the problem there. Eh, it can pass Congress if you know how. See also: expanding social benefits while framing the messaging as loving over non-white races. That's something that can pass the House. Basically, abandon all morals if you become a lobbyist and want to win. Use what polling suggests is best for messaging and never make a threat you aren't prepared to fully follow through on. Better to almost never make threats; direct action lets others fear you much more effectively, and it doesn't give them time to organize against you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Eh, it can pass Congress if you know how. See also: expanding social benefits while framing the messaging as loving over non-white races. That's something that can pass the House. Also to offset the costs we propose a cut to food stamps."
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Yeah, and Gore still lost to Bush #2 because the Republicans cheat. Speaking of Bush the Lesser, he sure was lucky that John "My face looks like a Halloween mask and I talk like Frankenstein's Monster" Kerry and John "Holy poo poo am I a despicable scumbug" Edwards were his only obstacles at re-election.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:My retort to this: "Ok, let's expand benefits. But only for people who live in rural areas. No reason, honest. Something like the former, except with hispanic/blacks is how I got some legislation passed that has lowered the rate of growth in college tuition costs in the state it was implemented in by 9.3% compared to non-intervention growth rates. E: Framing is framing. Impact is impact. I don't look at framing used; I measure actual impact.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:40
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Eh, it can pass Congress if you know how. See also: expanding social benefits while framing the messaging as loving over non-white races. That's something that can pass the House. It has gotten a lot harder to pass something that polls 80%+ but has a special interest group opposed to it. Even if you have good lobbyists.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
Miltank posted:how does the party allocate money to be spent on campaigns? What sort of actions are prohibited by law? There are obviously donation limits from individuals to campaigns, parties, or committees, but there are also donation limits from parties to a campaign. For instance, my Congressional candidate can only take $10K from the state or local parties - our CD committee already sent him that, so none of the local committees can now. Additionally, while parties and committees can spend side-by-side with candidates in multiple races, a donor can't specify which race his donation to a larger party should support. Parties circumvent this in a few ways:
I'm not an expert on campaign finance law at all, so I really can't say a lot more. Parties generally allocate support based on perceived winnability - they'll throw a lot of money at races they think will be or could be close, and barely any at races that are seen as sure things or lost causes. This actually has sort of snowball effect - candidates who get a lot of early donations will look a lot more viable to donors and to party higher-ups, which will cause more donations, etc. Miltank posted:I understand that the parties are not part of the government, but I still would like to know how they work. What its power structure is and how party decisions are made for example. Better yet, tell me what route I should take on my far left infiltration of the dems/gop. Parties are fundamentally going to be dominated by folks willing to put in the time. Showing up and putting in the hours to help elect candidates while also not being a freaking moron is going to make you very popular very fast. Since jobs like local party chair or CD party chair or state executive board or whatever are unpaid, the folks who tend to seek them out tend to be the folks who can sink a lot of time and money into them. For instance, just in my low ranking position in the state party I've got to travel to weekend state-wide meetings (and often get hotel rooms since I'm in a big state) 4 times a year, and go to another 6 or so more regional meetings. And that's without actually doing any work for those committees, that's just the meetings. Plus while fundraiser attendance isn't mandatory, it's an opportunity you need to take advantage of often - I've probably spent $500 or so on fundraiser tickets at the local and state level, and that was as a single dude buying entry-level tickets. And that's before you actually do any work for the higher-level stuff, which doesn't supersede doing front-line work on campaigns. If you're the chair of an active committee, expect it to be almost a part-time job. Party committees completely reorganize every few years. If you stack those reorganization meetings you can pick the officers. So if you show up and campaign for a while and make friends, then get a bunch of your buddies from outside the party to show up at the reorganizational meeting, they combined with your in-party friends can get you an officership (assuming such a position is even contested). It works the same way for the higher-level committees too - showing up at whatever caucuses select those members (or select delegates to a convention to pick those members) can get you a slot. Usually those sorts of caucuses get cancelled because chairs will do behind-the-scenes work to encourage/discourage applications, but there's nothing stopping you from telling them to go gently caress themselves and showing up en masse. 40 or so people willing to show up on two particular weekends could stack the state-party representation for an entire CD. The downside to that is that party committees on the state level seem not to hold a lot of power, because staffers and politicians are able to work on this poo poo full time and have to handle day-to-day while party members spend a few hours a quarter on it. Maybe it's different in other states relative to mine, but I doubt it. Most folks tend to be the go-along-to-get-along type and not boat-rockers so if party staffers and the Chair say something's a good idea it'll often get rubber-stamped. Plus politicians tend to control most of the fundraising so they have de facto veto power if they decide they won't help the state party raise money. Berke Negri posted:If you're not 16 and have to go the party PC route you also need to make up that lost time by A) already being rich, or B) successful in whatever you spent your 20s and 30s doing instead of working for the party. Party politics is about time put in for the organization and contacts, so you need to play catch-up with cash if you didn't spend all those youthful years doing bullshit and star loving. Very true. The ability to show up with $5000 checks yearly or to raise five-figures by having a fundraiser with your extended network is going to get you more loved than the guy who works his rear end off most weekends. If you actually want to run for an office like state legislator you've got to be able to rack up $50K or so in "friends and family" money to start out, and that goes into the six-figures and up for higher offices. My Imaginary GF posted:If you have any questions about finance, specific questions, I'll gladly answer them to the best of my ability to recall details at this time. Or, I could write up a methodology you can use to determine which staffer has influence with which elites in America so that you can use that staffer's employment through the years as a proxy for presidential ambition and which clustered networks are backing whom for president. Coordination between parties, party committees, and campaigns - the FEC website seems to imply that there's a money limit, but there doesn't seem to be on a practical basis just seeing how the DCCC/RNCC/state parties work. Unless only some fraction of the actual party-candidate coordination is getting counted. My Imaginary GF posted:He means literal star loving. Whoring yourself out is a well-known career move in politics, and in some circles, expected more than the exception. It depends. Exactly how high up counts as the "star" side of this equation? EDIT: Do we have a "political parties as organizations themselves" thread for party chat? Jackson Taus fucked around with this message at 07:41 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:
In money and politics, there's 'illegal' and then there's "HOLY gently caress ILLEGAL AND SUPER EASY TO CATCH DO NOT DO THIS EVER YOU loving IDIOT WHAT THE CHRIST." Think of the FEC as merely offering suggestions for 'best practices.' For instance, lets say you're a multi-B CEO and personal friends with someone running for Congress. You doublemax to them from you, your wife, and all your kids, wired directly from one family trust. Campaign reports contributions and attributions them accurately. Has anything illegal occured? Can you prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? Can you prove it in a way that won't jeopardize your career by getting the multi-B to call El Pres on your rear end and invite him to a fundraiser or your tuscan villa to ostensibly discuss your re-election/successor to back, and oh btw theres this FEC thing, and bam. You, a lowly FEC civil servant, now have your name known to the President as someone not playing ball. What happens to you?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:Coordination between parties, party committees, and campaigns - the FEC website seems to imply that there's a money limit, but there doesn't seem to be on a practical basis just seeing how the DCCC/RNCC/state parties work. Unless only some fraction of the actual party-candidate coordination is getting counted. One common technique is to put all your GOTV, mandatory events (the local watermelon fest), fieldwork infrastructure and other big ticket items as party sponsored events. So the ground campaign or phone callers ask you to vote for 2+ candidates and now they get to spend party money without coordination. Infrastructure works the same way, the money spent on databases is party money which then makes an in-kind contribution of the value of access to their database.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:In money and politics, there's 'illegal' and then there's "HOLY gently caress ILLEGAL AND SUPER EASY TO CATCH DO NOT DO THIS EVER YOU loving IDIOT WHAT THE CHRIST." What I actually meant was more "the FEC says parties can only do $50K in coordinated expenditures or whatever, why am I seeing Party field staff, Hill Committee field staff, and campaign staff working side-by-side?" which Trabisnikof partially answered.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 07:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:57 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:One common technique is to put all your GOTV, mandatory events (the local watermelon fest), fieldwork infrastructure and other big ticket items as party sponsored events. So the ground campaign or phone callers ask you to vote for 2+ candidates and now they get to spend party money without coordination. Infrastructure works the same way, the money spent on databases is party money which then makes an in-kind contribution of the value of access to their database. Another common strategy is totally not receiving checks on purpose up to the closing of an amendment period via overnight mail while someone else you work with receives other checks of same ammounts. Why would thid ever happen? Can you trade totalmax donors? Is that coordination beyond a reasonable doubt? And that's why interests such as AIPAC have the power they do: when you have blank checks that you can be called upon for at a moment's notice, and have thousands of them, from all sectors and industries, you have true power. E: Jackson Taus posted:What I actually meant was more "the FEC says parties can only do $50K in coordinated expenditures or whatever, why am I seeing Party field staff, Hill Committee field staff, and campaign staff working side-by-side?" which Trabisnikof partially answered. Ah. Yeah, I dealt with managing and money, only field last week/emergency redeploys after. Hatred, thy name is doubledial calltime, and you are a room at heart in DCCC and DSC. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 07:06 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 07:03
|
|