|
Zanzibar Ham posted:Is Obama able to personally take the money from his campaign and do with it whatever he wants?
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 20:45 |
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:e: was that money just for campaigns? Yes. It was campaign contributions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
euphronius posted:You have to show the changes in their votes for money for it to be bribery. Or just give em an iou and call them "speaking fees"
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Tempest_56 posted:I'll bite - how did we used to do it better? There's thousands of stories of political corruption (big and small) running rampant through the US government in more or less every era, so that claim seems kinda hollow. And what other countries are better about it, and what do they do differently that leads to those outcomes? Ok, sorry it took me a while to get back to this but I was preoccupied with extremely important viddygames. This article is a good summary of how other nations do it: http://prospect.org/article/how-our-campaign-finance-system-compares-other-countries As to how to fix it, what I'd propose is reverse these decisions: quote:On June 27, 2011, ruling in the consolidated cases Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett (No. 10-238) and McComish v. Bennett (No. 10-239), the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional an Arizona law that provided extra taxpayer-funded support for office seekers who have been outspent by privately funded opponents or by independent political groups. A conservative 5–4 majority of justices said the law violated free speech, concluding the state was impermissibly trying to "level the playing field" through a public finance system. Arizona lawmakers had argued there was a compelling state interest in equalizing resources among competing candidates and interest groups.[102] Opponents said the law violated free-speech rights of the privately financed candidates and their contributors, inhibiting fundraising and spending, discouraging participation in campaigns and limiting what voters hear about politics.[103] Chief Justice John Roberts said in the court's majority opinion that the law substantially burdened political speech and was not sufficiently justified to survive First Amendment scrutiny.[103] Then implement a 40% tax on campaign spending and dedicate the money from that tax to provide public financing to all parties who gathered 5% of the vote in the prior election. In other words, a content-neutral "soft cap" on spending coupled with public financing. I think this is as constitutionally valid as any other tax; after all, theoretically, ANY tax reduces your ability to speak about political issues (because money is speech for these purposes). Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Apr 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Ok, sorry it took me a while to get back to this but I was preoccupied with extremely important viddygames. Taxing spending on political speech isn't content-neutral, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Taxing spending on political speech isn't content-neutral, though. It's sufficiently content-neutral that I think it passes constitutional muster (especially given the compelling state interest in ensuring a fair and free marketplace of ideas in political campaigns). You aren't taxing a particular opinion, you're just taxing discourse in general because discourse has costs that have to be paid for. If that really bothers you though, just make it a tax on all advertising period; all paid speech of any kind. We tax other constitutional activities (for example, we tax the purchase of firearms). No more controversial than charging a fee to broadcast on a particular frequency. Edit: do that and you could lower the tax rate pretty significantly too, advertising as a whole is a huge industry. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Apr 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
kaleedity posted:it is interesting that in 1901, a two-term republican president's primary domestic policy pointed towards breaking up trusts. Eight years later, when Teddy's protégé Taft becomes president, they have a falling out over breaking up US Steel, which Roosevelt considered One of the Good Ones. Four years after that, after an election divided by Roosevelt's third party candidacy, a democrat becomes elected that implements the FTC to enforce his new Clayton antitrust act. This article is germane I think: quote:The following year, Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic candidate for President, asked Brandeis to sketch out a position for him on the “Trust problem” which would be different from that of Theodore Roosevelt, who was running as a third-party candidate. Brandeis wrote a letter making the point that the Democrats were for enforced competition in industry, whereas Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party believed that trusts and monopolies “should be made ‘good’ by regulation.” Brandeis went on, “We believe that no methods of regulation ever have been or can be devised to remove the menace inherent in private monopoly and overweening commercial power. This difference in the economic policy of the two parties is fundamental and irreconcilable.” http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/03/28/why-big-business-and-big-government-haunt-america The suspicion of large corporation was much more prevalent at the time, after the predations of the Gilded Age. The roll-back in the widespread agreement to whittle down trusts has been occurring since the Progressive movement, and only recently seen some push-back.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
That whole period was pre first big Red scare before the Supreme Court shut down leftist activists. TDR was not leftist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:It's sufficiently content-neutral that I think it passes constitutional muster (especially given the compelling state interest in ensuring a fair and free marketplace of ideas in political campaigns). You aren't taxing a particular opinion, you're just taxing discourse in general because discourse has costs that have to be paid for. Taxing political speech as opposed to non political speech isn't content neutral. It's viewpoint neutral, which is different. It's content specific because it targets political content, but leaves alone (eg) entertainment content. quote:If that really bothers you though, just make it a tax on all advertising period; all paid speech of any kind. We tax other constitutional activities (for example, we tax the purchase of firearms). No more controversial than charging a fee to broadcast on a particular frequency. Taxing all paid speech seems like it just shifts the playing field even more in the direction of people who have lots of money. (Not to mention trying to define paid speech is impossible unless you adopt definitions so overly broad they're impractical or so narrow as to be meaningless.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Kalman posted:(Not to mention trying to define paid speech is impossible unless you adopt definitions so overly broad they're impractical or so narrow as to be meaningless.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
I think I have another way to look at this. The argument is made that if you restrict speech at all, its a slippery slope and then you're a first amendment violating a tyrant, but there is a reasonable counter argument to be made that people have a right as members of a free society that accumulated affluence shouldn't be able to unreasonably affect their lives. How do I illustrate the concept? Assume for a moment that information technology and it's interactions with capital continue on their current trend. It could be possible, though I won't argue the merits of its likelihood, but possible for someone to buy their way into being able to broadcast loud audio and video into people's lives, be it by billboards, their smart phones or whatever, the methodology isn't really important. What is important is that when you insist on this no limits money is free speech you're making argument for societally disruptive behavior, if you find the idea of a capitalist being able to buy their way into communication channels at all because it's "free speech" you're probably not considering the consequences of such rigid and backwards policy. Its absurd and the question is not "should there be a line" its where the line is. Corruption is similar and trying to say but that's the law is just a cover for being unimaginative and not wanting to engage with HOW you would make satisfactory policy. RuanGacho fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Apr 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
twodot posted:Why can't we just use "the activity described in the BCRA, but we don't care if it's regarding an election"? So "any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication" where there's a direct cost of production and airing? Because, uh, now you're taxing news media, entertainment, and a whole bunch of non-advertising content as well. At which point let's talk about Grosjean v American Press Co, which held that a license tax on advertising income by a newspaper was unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Or MN Star Tribune v Minnesota Comm Rev, which was about an unconstitutional tax on ink and paper due to its targeted impact on freedom of the press. (And then there's Arkansas Writers Project v Ragland, which tells us that it wasn't constitutional to tax general interest magazines while exempting newspapers, religious mags, and professional journals. I'm sure that a tax targeted to political speech would do great.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I think I have another way to look at this. The argument is made that if you restrict speech at all, its a slippery slope and then you're a first amendment violating a tyrant, but there is a reasonable counter argument to be made that people have a right as members of a free society that accumulated affluence shouldn't be able to unreasonably affect their lives. How do I illustrate the concept? Start by justifying the argument that you have that right. (You don't.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Start by justifying the argument that you have that right. Haha how about gently caress you I don't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Haha how about gently caress you I don't. I'm sure you can point to some constitutional principle or other source of legal authority that you have that right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I'm sure you can point to some constitutional principle or other source of legal authority that you have that right. This is the only help you're getting: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unenumerated_rights quote:Unenumerated rights will be actual rights insofar as they necessitate the systematization of positively enumerated rights anywhere laws would become logically incoherent, or could not be adhered to or maintained in the exclusion of those unenumerated items as rights.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I'm sure you can point to some constitutional principle or other source of legal authority that you have that right. I think he has a right to not be murdered by the affluenza teen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
Is there a pending SCOTUS case regarding the FCC's authority to enforce their rules regarding title 2 or something?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:This is the only help you're getting: Well if you look at the penumbras of the first, third, and ninth amendment you'll clearly see the unenumerated right of "gently caress the rich" Someone get Douglas on this stat!
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:This is the only help you're getting: So you don't have anything is what you're saying. (Wikipedia is not legal authority, and the Ninth Amendment doesn't justify random made up rights.) FAUXTON posted:Is there a pending SCOTUS case regarding the FCC's authority to enforce their rules regarding title 2 or something? It's in front of the DC Circuit - oral arguments were in December. No opinion from the Circuit yet. I didn't pay much attention to arguments so not sure if there was a general intuition as to how they'll go.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
Kalman posted:So you don't have anything is what you're saying. (Wikipedia is not legal authority, and the Ninth Amendment doesn't justify random made up rights.) I imagine they will uphold the rule because title 2 is what they basically encouraged the FCC to do when they blocked them. Which is good, because it's a fairly comprehensive and consumer-positive regime.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I imagine they will uphold the rule because title 2 is what they basically encouraged the FCC to do when they blocked them. Which is good, because it's a fairly comprehensive and consumer-positive regime. So, the challenge is mostly about whether they followed the proper procedures in deciding to switch to Title II, not whether Title II is appropriate. (There are some weak challenges on the latter issue but they're very weak.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I'm sure you can point to some constitutional principle or other source of legal authority that you have that right. Communist Manifesto, of course
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
Kalman posted:So, the challenge is mostly about whether they followed the proper procedures in deciding to switch to Title II, not whether Title II is appropriate. (There are some weak challenges on the latter issue but they're very weak.) In what way did they not follow proper procedures? Like what steps on the flowchart did they miss when (at long last) properly classifying providers?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:In what way did they not follow proper procedures? Like what steps on the flowchart did they miss when (at long last) properly classifying providers? The FCC is an administrative agency governed by the Administrative Procedures Act which means there's a bunch of statutory and case law mandates on exactly how they have to handle issuance of new rules (which this was). The biggest is provision of proper notice in the specific rule making proceeding, which the challengers allege wasn't present because the NPRM only asked questions about whether TitleII might be appropriate and didn't actually propose regulating under that authority. It's not an open and shut case either way, I'd say, but if the FCC loses it'll likely just be another delay while they do the proceeding properly, not a ruling that Title II isn't acceptable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
Kalman posted:The FCC is an administrative agency governed by the Administrative Procedures Act which means there's a bunch of statutory and case law mandates on exactly how they have to handle issuance of new rules (which this was). The biggest is provision of proper notice in the specific rule making proceeding, which the challengers allege wasn't present because the NPRM only asked questions about whether TitleII might be appropriate and didn't actually propose regulating under that authority. So the challengers (assumedly these would be properly-regulated entities under the reclassification) are basically claiming they were too dumb to realize "or this" might have resulted in "this" being adopted, even though plenty of comments submitted (even ones from parties subject to the proposed rules) addressed title II regulation? Or is there no potential for the ruling to basically say that while Title II was only put forth as a proposed alternative, the plaintiffs made plenty of specific comments regarding Title II and as a result they can't claim they were harmed by the manner in which they were notified, because they obviously received the message?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:So the challengers (assumedly these would be properly-regulated entities under the reclassification) are basically claiming they were too dumb to realize "or this" might have resulted in "this" being adopted, even though plenty of comments submitted (even ones from parties subject to the proposed rules) addressed title II regulation? Or is there no potential for the ruling to basically say that while Title II was only put forth as a proposed alternative, the plaintiffs made plenty of specific comments regarding Title II and as a result they can't claim they were harmed by the manner in which they were notified, because they obviously received the message? It's completely plausible to argue that Title II wasn't a proposed alternative given the text of the proposed rule making - that's why it's borderline. It's not just enough to say "we might title II", particularly when the rule making proposal had a primary rule proposal. Basically, the FCC said "we are going to do these 5 things and want comments on that. Also we are curious for your thoughts on how various legal authorities such as section 706, title II, or title III could be used to ensure an open internet." So Title II is mentioned, but not really in the context of reclassification of broadband as part of the final rule and not in much detail. (Arguably insufficient detail for APA rule making.). Notice in notice and comment is more than just "aware it maybe could happen", there really is an implication that you have to provide notice of your proposed rule in specific. There was also a lot of internal discussion at the FCC suggesting a good portion of FCC legal thought they should do a new NPRM. All of that came out in a HSGAC report after subpoenaing records from the FCC. That said, it's not like reclassification was entirely absent and there's some record in the topic in the proceeding, so they could potentially claim the requirements were properly met.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Taxing political speech as opposed to non political speech isn't content neutral. It's viewpoint neutral, which is different. It's content specific because it targets political content, but leaves alone (eg) entertainment content. Viewpoint based restrictions are a type of content restriction; this is in practical terms a semantic quibble. I encourage you to read Kagan's dissent in the case I referenced above http://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/publications/AZ%20FREE%20ENTERPRISE.pdf quote:Arizona's statute does not impose a restriction,j ante, at 15, or substantial burde[n],j ante, at 2, on expression. The law has quite the opposite effect: It subsidizes and so produces more political speech. We recognized in Buckley that, for this reason, public financing of elections ifacilitate[s] and enlarge[s] public discussion,j in support of First Amendment values. 424 U. S., at 92?93. And what we said then is just as true today. Except in a world gone topsy-turvy, additional campaign speech and electoral competition is not a First Amendment injury.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Start by justifying the argument that you have that right. This is a correct post.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Viewpoint based restrictions are a type of content restriction; this is in practical terms a semantic quibble. Viewpoint restrictions are a subset of content restrictions - you can be content-based but viewpoint neutral, but you can't be viewpoint based and content neutral. It's not a semantic quibble at all, as certain areas of law turn on it (government speech being a key one), but irrelevant as restriction of political speech is not content neutral. As to Kagan, you had the key word in your post: dissent. That said, I'm not sure why you're pointing to a case about the constitutionality of public funding mechanisms. It's not particularly relevant to any argument you've made. (I mostly agree with Kagan's dissent, fwiw, though I think she goes too far - the independent expenditures link to public financing shouldn't be upheld, since there's a qualitative difference between funding directly to the campaign and funding outside the campaign. Funding someone else's speech isn't burdening your speech.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Ok, sorry it took me a while to get back to this but I was preoccupied with extremely important viddygames. As glad I am that Scalia's dead I hope Roberts steps in front of a bus because he's a loving awful monster who loves to push "money = power, poor = gently caress you" whenever possible. That ruling is atrocious and helps ensure that you can't reasonably run for office without moneyed interests backing you and I hope he gets replaced with a clone of Kagan or Sotomayor. FAUXTON posted:I imagine they will uphold the rule because title 2 is what they basically encouraged the FCC to do when they blocked them. Which is good, because it's a fairly comprehensive and consumer-positive regime. Hopefully some pro-FCC rulings will further embolden Wheeler so he gets more aggressive in going after the bullshit state laws enacted to block municipal broadband at the behest of Comcast and other ISPs. Wheeler's a long time Clinton supporter IIRC so I have to imagine if she wins he's going to have her backing to continue his current course.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Assume for a moment that information technology and it's interactions with capital continue on their current trend. It could be possible, though I won't argue the merits of its likelihood, but possible for someone to buy their way into being able to broadcast loud audio and video into people's lives, be it by billboards, their smart phones or whatever, the methodology isn't really important. Laying aside how the hell you'd even begin to measure this to figure out how much is too much, I don't think of "compelling government interest" when I think of some rando installing Ad Block to skip the 50th loving ad before a Youtube video.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 03:14
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Kalman posted:As to Kagan, you had the key word in your post: dissent. That said, I'm not sure why you're pointing to a case about the constitutionality of public funding mechanisms. Because someone asked me what my proposal was to fix campaign finance in this country, and my response was to overturn that specific decision and then implement a system of public financing following that model? What do you think the discussion in this thread has been about? You're acting like 5-4 rulings are unchangeable truths; they aren't. The law is whatever the Supreme Court says it is, and the Supreme Court can be changed. In this instance, as Kagan clearly spells out in her dissent that I cited, preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption is a compelling interest that survives strict scrutiny. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Apr 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Because someone asked me what my proposal was to fix campaign finance in this country, and my response was to overturn that specific decision and then implement a system of public financing following that model? Oh, well, I agree with you there - that decision should be overturned. The system AZ proposed was mostly fine, minus the linkage of campaign funding to independent expenditures (because it provides a back channel route to exceed contribution limits by establishing a nominally pro-opponent entity and expending funding through it in inefficient or unproductive ways in order to trigger additional funding to your preferred candidate and thus entirely subverts contribution limits.) As to CU and Buckley? Those were correctly decided.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:But possible for someone to buy their way into being able to broadcast loud audio and video into people's lives, be it by billboards, their smart phones or whatever, the methodology isn't really important. Ok, so, see, we have laws to deal with this. They're called nuisance laws and time/place/manner restrictions. They explicitly apply to ALL speech.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Start by justifying the argument that you have that right. Not being ruled by unaccountable overlords is basically a foundational principle of the country, so it would be nice if you could elaborate on why there are no possible allowable approaches to restricting money in politics
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
Yashichi posted:Not being ruled by unaccountable overlords is basically a foundational principle of the country, so it would be nice if you could elaborate on why there are no possible allowable approaches to restricting money in politics There are. Just not on restricting spending on independent speech about political topics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Ok, so, see, we have laws to deal with this. They're called nuisance laws and time/place/manner restrictions. They explicitly apply to ALL speech. AS would my proposed tax on all advertising. From a quick google, in 2015, more than 180 billion dollars was spent on advertising in America. The center for responsive politics estimates the cost of all campaign spending in 2016 in America for 2016 to be 3.67 billion. (sources : http://www.opensecrets.org/news/201...are-of-the-pie/ , http://www.statista.com/topics/979/advertising-in-the-us/ -- just what I turned up in a fifteen second google). So a roughly 2% tax on advertising would be sufficient to completely fund all elections in America via public financing. It's content-neutral because all speech is taxed equally; it *increases*, rather than restricts, speech and public discourse (by substituting political for commercial speech, and by ensuring a wider array of voices are heard); and no one is meaningfully restricted from speaking in any way, because a simple even tax is no more restrictive than the fees already paid to license television stations for broadcast or apportion broadcast bandwidth. It's thus narrowly tailored to satisfy a compelling government interest; if you can come up with a less restrictive means of serving that same interest, please share. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Apr 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:AS would my proposed tax on all advertising. A simple tax on advertising is unconstitutional. I already provided you the case cite on it. E: and you keep citing broadcast licensing as if it's relevant. It's not - it's a special case where the restricted availability of spectrum requires management. Trying to impose similar licensure fees on cable channels would be a problem, same as there's some ability to regulate profanity and nudity over the air that isn't possible on cable. Kalman fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Apr 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 20:45 |
|
|
HA, you're really starting with an assumption and arguing to its justification, facts be damned, here. CU was probably rightly decided; the distinctions that were employed to restrict political speech aren't constitutionally tenable. Ad funding is speech, political ad funding is political speech, and the restriction of political speech is both unconstitutional and a Really Bad Idea. Could folks speak to the legal viability of, for the purpose of argument, really extreme 501c funding disclosure requirements? Is there some sort of freedom of association problem there?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 04:43
|
|
