|
CU caused a bunch of annoying commercials to be on my tv.
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 14:57 |
|
|
Perhaps the funniest thing about open finance laws is stuff like this: https://twitter.com/everygopdonor/status/686146333997174784 https://twitter.com/everydemdonor/status/722117856251551745
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
Yeah, too bad it's so hard to do that with who gives what to the Myriad 501(4)c's.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
The biggest impact CU has had is creating a bunch of incompetent, wannabe Boss Tweeds. Most of which love to trip up everyone on their side.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
It's definitely eroded the power of the party committees, though that is skewed more to the GOP side. That's had real effects in which candidates are getting nominated and what they're running on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Again, you guys are saying a lot of stuff without offering a shred of evidence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Captain Magic posted:The problem I have with people focusing on overturning Citizens United is that it seems myopic at times. I don't know if they're using "Citizens United" as a catch-all for "campaign finance corruption" (and they easily could be), but overturning CU by itself is only going to revert us back to how it was before it was passed. And that was still incredibly lovely and in desperate need of reform.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:Can't speak for anyone else, but my laser focus on CU is because it's only going to take a shift in the Court's ideology. Get literally anyone on there in the Scalia slot and I'm sure there's already a case lined up that can get fast-tracked up to take it out. Anything else would take "real" legislation. No, there isn't a case lined up. You'd need to pass legislation. It's not actually that big of a hurdle, though, since you can just pass state legislation and use that as your test case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:Can't speak for anyone else, but my laser focus on CU is because it's only going to take a shift in the Court's ideology. Get literally anyone on there in the Scalia slot and I'm sure there's already a case lined up that can get fast-tracked up to take it out. Anything else would take "real" legislation. What is your injury to get standing? If you try to pass a state law that regulates donations to federal campaigns, won't it get struck down on federal preemption? EwokEntourage fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Apr 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
I could be (and likely am) wrong, but I think of CU as the focal point because it would have to be overturned before any meaningful campaign finance reform could possibly get passed, since CU cemented that money=political speech and that all forms of political speech are equal in the "marketplace of ideas" and cannot be selectively restricted without a literal provable quid pro quo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
zoux posted:Again, you guys are saying a lot of stuff without offering a shred of evidence. Nah brosef both national party organizations have lost donor share to outside groups. Link to come, phone posting bear with me. Here is your source Zoux, calm down. Rygar201 fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Apr 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:This, and I want the national Anthem replaced with the Battle Hymn of the Republic. John Brown's Body 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/federal_civil_rights_commission_condemns_north_carolina_anti_lgbt_law_hb2quote:The United States Commission on Civil Rights Monday condemned the North Carolina anti-LGBT law, along with Mississippi's "religious freedom" law HB 1523, and other, similar legislation, warning of "a larger, alarming trend to limit the civil rights of a class of people using religious beliefs as the excuse." Long story short, if the USCCR is saying this, chances are any legal challenges to these laws and bills will likely win in court.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
zoux posted:Again, you guys are saying a lot of stuff without offering a shred of evidence. And you're saying the same thing over and over.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Nah brosef both national party organizations have lost donor share to outside groups. Well if I can somehow see through the meltdown you think I'm having, what does this have to do with CU?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Guess we better give up on trying to regulate things, those wily crooks will just do it anyway! Uh, dude, yeah it's nearly impossible to regulate speech. You're just going to have to deal with that fact.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
zoux posted:Well if I can somehow see through the meltdown you think I'm having, what does this have to do with CU? I don't think you're melting down, I think you're tediously asking for citations for uncontroversial things. Well, after years of weakening CF Regulations, of which CU is a part, donors have chosen to donate more of their money to groups they think they can more effectively control than the party apparatus which had its own agendas. Citizens United isn't the only element of this, but it is definitely a part of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:I don't think you're melting down, I think you're tediously asking for citations for uncontroversial things. They're only uncontroversial because people haven't given them an ounce of thought, which is why no one has been able to produce a single piece of evidence showing a relationship between the kinds and amounts of spending allowed by CU and electoral outcome, despite making a bunch of claims like "well it hurts downtickets" and other such nebulous arguments. Sorry that being forced to prove your point is so tedious, maybe you'd enjoy it more if you had some actual evidence. CU was not a ruling where the SCOTUS stood up and said "Money in politics is dope as hell", we can debate money in politics if you guys want to, again I don't think the evidence would show what you want it to show, but as far as Citizen's United having an outsized effect on political outcomes, well show. me. some. evidence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Citizens United is Roe for the Democrats. We might hate it and loathe it and want it gone, but it was decided in 2010 on not utterly ridiculous grounds. It's not going to be overturned anytime soon, and it's fortunate that there's little evidence of it having a significant effect on races.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 18:39
|
|
Cat Army 
|
Alright dude, whatever. You're not going to be able to isolate that as the determinant. It's also helpful that loads of GOP and affiliated strategists are just in for the sweet sweet paycheck. It's bad either way, especially because it lead to things like Mcucheon v FEC and is another ruling people can point to when they argue that matching funds or disclosure requirements infringe upon their right to speak with as many figures as they want. You're asking for evidence that doesn't and probably can't exist and when it doesn't turn up you're dismissing people who disagree with you as Low Information Voters. It's rude, IMO.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Not mentioned here yet, but UnitedHealth is pulling out of (most) exchanges next year because it's not cost-effective for them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Alright dude, whatever. You're not going to be able to isolate that as the determinant. It's also helpful that loads of GOP and affiliated strategists are just in for the sweet sweet paycheck. It's bad either way, especially because it lead to things like Mcucheon v FEC and is another ruling people can point to when they argue that matching funds or disclosure requirements infringe upon their right to speak with as many figures as they want. Guess what it means when evidence for what you claim doesn't exist. ComradeCosmobot posted:Not mentioned here yet, but UnitedHealth is pulling out of (most) exchanges next year because it's not cost-effective for them. Hmmm but what if health care wasn't a profit motivated industry...
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
zoux posted:Guess what it means when evidence for what you claim doesn't exist. That some things are hard to quantify and definitively prove? It's a pretty out there concept, I know.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Isn't that three month old news?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
The CU decision is part of the slow erosion of barriers between information, entertainment, and advertisement. Everything is spin, everyone is trying to build their little kingdom.Rygar201 posted:That some things are hard to quantify and definitively prove? This is what Clinton and Blairite liberals don't believe. Only things that can be quantified fit into their completely finance-centric world.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:That some things are hard to quantify and definitively prove? It's a pretty out there concept, I know. So this is based on the fact that you believe it super hard then. Well, can't argue with that I guess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ap/status/722478283053535232
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Well I guess since we can't know beyond reasonable doubt that any election outcomes were affected, this is probably fine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:That some things are hard to quantify and definitively prove? It's a pretty out there concept, I know. unicorns
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
zoux posted:So this is based on the fact that you believe it super hard then. Well, can't argue with that I guess. Or he can see the plain writing on the wall that nobody in power feels the need to actually investigate to give academic weight to obvious conclusions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Mr. Wookums posted:unicorns God
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Hooray, something good came out of this state for once 
sexy fucking muskrat fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Apr 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:Isn't that three month old news? They were considering it three months ago. The confirmation that they are pulling out is new.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Well I guess since we can't know beyond reasonable doubt that any election outcomes were affected, this is probably fine. Look man I wanted to believe that Citizens United was bad too, but I looked at the available evidence and determined that, luckily, it hasn't had the outsized effect on elections that we worried it would. That article, like most I found, says that CU has led to an explosion in money in politics, which I concede. But I don't agree that this increase of money has led to any kind of electoral sway, because there's no data to support it. Talmonis posted:Or he can see the plain writing on the wall that nobody in power feels the need to actually investigate to give academic weight to obvious conclusions. You think like a liberal Republican.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Look man, without sworn affidavits we'll never know if John Q Legislator was influenced by Major Local Business's significant contribution to his totally unaffiliated campaign PAC, which is operated by a close friend.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Look man, without sworn affidavits we'll never know if John Q Legislator was influenced by Major Local Business's significant contribution to his totally unaffiliated campaign PAC, which is operated by a close friend. That's not the claim being made though. The claim that Zoux, and others, are making is that there's no evidence to show Citizens United has materially affected election results. If you want to make a claim about corruption that's a completely different argument.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:What is your injury to get standing? You pass a state law that regulates donations to state campaigns. It gets challenged under the First Amendment to the US Constitution. There's no preemption issue. (This actually happened in Montana, which used to have extremely strict campaign finance laws due to a history of corruption.) As to the injury, you just need someone who wants to donate but is barred from doing so by the structure of the law, or a candidate barred from receiving offered funds.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
It was already laughably easily to raise tons of cash and use it in 527s. The test for issue advocacy is not a hard one Edit that makes sense
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Look man, without sworn affidavits we'll never know if John Q Legislator was influenced by Major Local Business's significant contribution to his totally unaffiliated campaign PAC, which is operated by a close friend. What you aren't getting is that that doesn't represent any change from before the Citizens United ruling, except in the precise manner of function. And if it's an election for state or local office, CU changed nothing because it only affected federal campaigns.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 14:57 |
|
|
zoux posted:Look man I wanted to believe that Citizens United was bad too, but I looked at the available evidence and determined that, luckily, it hasn't had the outsized effect on elections that we worried it would. That article, like most I found, says that CU has led to an explosion in money in politics, which I concede. But I don't agree that this increase of money has led to any kind of electoral sway, because there's no data to support it. I don't think the long term effects of CU have been felt yet, but this far you're right. The Richmond CA mayoral election where local business giant Chevron dumped $1M into the mayoral race for this city of 100k residents. And they lost. But I not confident that all future organizations seeking to buy an election will be as incompetent. As much as I dislike the the Koch bros, at least they are ideologues. And while their network didn't require CU to start, CU has helped it grow. CU makes it easier to start a new network for more nefarious purposes than the Kochs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 19:02
|
|
