|
SCOTUS saying that you're not allowed to blatantly raid campaign funds might have been one of the few ways for the legislature to come together and check judicial power, lol. If it ain't insider trading than it's making "loans" to your own campaign to get those sweet sweet donor bucks into your bank account. All hail the grift.
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 18:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 00:56 |
|
|
If I read it right part of the Court's argument is that it's not a gift since the candidate is returned to the status quo prior to the campaign. But that makes no sense a campaign isn't supposed to be a profitable enterprise that money should be a loss it's spent on electioneering.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 18:36
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:If I read it right part of the Court's argument is that it's not a gift since the candidate is returned to the status quo prior to the campaign. But that makes no sense a campaign isn't supposed to be a profitable enterprise that money should be a loss it's spent on electioneering. It's a loss to the donors. I'm not sure I buy the logic that money doesn't count as a gift if you're in debt, though.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 18:49
|
|
|
What's the interest rate on Trump's $50m from 2016? His campaign is gonna be making minimum payments on that for a long time.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 18:59
|
|
|
Not sure I understand either. It's not simply money going into their bank account, it's reimbursement/donation for/of funds the candidate loaned to the campaign in the first place.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 19:06
|
|
|
It's an obvious avenue for corruption. If you "loaned" your campaign money you couldn't actually afford to lose, and you're desperate to pay it back now that you've won, and well hey here comes a donor who doesn't even have to gamble on who's going to win they can just make you financially whole in two seconds, for a price of course... It's a pretty clear incentive for bribery. And also to get in lots of debt while campaigning in the first place because hey if you win Aetna's got your back...
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 19:11
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:Not sure I understand either. It's not simply money going into their bank account, it's reimbursement/donation for/of funds the candidate loaned to the campaign in the first place. Instead of spending money on your own campaign, now you just "loan" it to your campaign. Then after you are in office you get money back (plus intereest) from the "loan" by having people donate to the campaign and then yourself back from those "donations". Congratulations, instead of losing 20 million in paying for your campaign you made 5 million! If you think that's fine, then I am the wallet inspector please hand it over for me to check it out
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 19:12
|
|
|
Basically it's like this At 0 interest: Candidate loans campaign 100k. He now has 100k less. Candidate wins, get's donations, campaign repays him => Candidate is again at 0. Now were it gets interesting is when he charges insane interest rates. Let's say the candidate loans the 100k at 18% interest rate (real life example I read on twitter). He now can recieve 18k per year from the campaign in interest payments with the principle only repaid whenever he feels like he made enough money from grifting. This case is really bad. Piell posted:Instead of spending money on your own campaign, now you just "loan" it to your campaign. Then after you are in office you get money back (plus intereest) from the "loan" by having people donate to the campaign and then yourself back from those "donations". Congratulations, instead of losing 20 million in paying for your campaign you made 5 million! It's fine at 0 interest because it just means that the candidate assumes the risk of losing the election for the donor, who only pays after the candidate is elected.
|
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 19:12
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Basically it's like this No, it's still bad at 0 interest, because previously the loan amounts over 250k accrued before the election could only be paid from funds received before the election. Now you're free to get paid after you're elected. quote:b. For personal loans that, in the aggregate, exceed $250,000 in connection with an election, the authorized committee:
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 19:18
|
|
|
No like I already said it isn't fine at 0 interest.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 19:18
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:
Do we want candidates assuming all the risk and needing bailouts from donors who are going to attach strings to it, seems like a bad conflict of interest to me!
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 19:18
|
|
|
The Roberts Court has been openly pro-political corruption for its entire existence. From McDonnell, where bribery only counts if if a politician signs a document stating "I am committing political favors for these specific gifts," to Citizens United, which needs no explanation, and now this. Anything that disrupts the flow of money to politicians is fair game.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 20:17
|
|
|
Chamale posted:The 3rd only applies to soldiers. To resolve this problem, we need fetal conscription. SCOTUS 2022: To resolve this problem, we need fetal conscription.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 20:44
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:It's fine at 0 interest because it just means that the candidate assumes the risk of losing the election for the donor, who only pays after the candidate is elected. It's not fine at 0 because it allows direct bribes straight into the pockets of politicians so long as they put enough of their "own" money (which could be loans!) into the campaign. Campaign costs paid by the candidate should be sunk contributions, especially after the candidate has taken office. "Loan money to your campaign" is already ripe for abuse even before it was extended post-campaign.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 21:26
|
|
|
Oracle posted:SCOTUS 2022: To resolve this problem, we need fetal conscription. Fetuses are soldiers the same way they're people: they could grow into a person who might join the military or be drafted QED
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 21:57
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:What's the interest rate on Trump's $50m from 2016? His campaign is gonna be making minimum payments on that for a long time. The trump example is worse because the trump org was the contractor too. He took donations in, then spent it by hiring his own business to provide the services. I really figured that was the grift all along and he just happened to win. It was like the producers but an election.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 22:00
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Fetuses are soldiers the same way they're people: they could grow into a person who might join the military or be drafted At least then everyone ever born gets put on Tricare and we get universal health care that way
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 22:04
|
|
|
haveblue posted:At least then everyone ever born gets put on Tricare and we get universal health care that way Pretty much the backdoor way to get universal health care in this country: mandatory military service for every adult for whatever period of time gets you those sweet sweet VA bennies.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 23:35
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Pretty much the backdoor way to get universal health care in this country: mandatory military service for every adult for whatever period of time gets you those sweet sweet VA bennies. Good thing this country also prioritizes giving excellent benefits and healthcare to veterans and that the entire VA program is not a nightmare for most!
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 23:52
|
|
|
Stickman posted:It's not fine at 0 because it allows direct bribes straight into the pockets of politicians so long as they put enough of their "own" money (which could be loans!) into the campaign. Campaign costs paid by the candidate should be sunk contributions, especially after the candidate has taken office. "Loan money to your campaign" is already ripe for abuse even before it was extended post-campaign. Yep. Step 1: Candidate borrows money in a personal loan from a wealthy friend. Step 2: Candidate places said money into campaign as a loan from himself. Step 3: Candidate campaigns and wins. Step 4: Candidate is made whole by donors, and pays off personal loan to wealthy friend who now has effectively legally purchased himself an elected official.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2022 01:27
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Yep. not just legally, but constitutionally protected!
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2022 02:02
|
|
|
Proust Malone posted:The trump example is worse because the trump org was the contractor too. He took donations in, then spent it by hiring his own business to provide the services. I really figured that was the grift all along and he just happened to win. It was like the producers but an election. I bet Trump has examples of this poo poo hiding that we haven't caught onto yet and Cruz is now back in Trumps good graces. Records proving so might just "finally" get released. I'll be more than happy to be wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2022 03:15
|
|
|
Is there a handicapping wisdom on how the Texas/FL Social Media law appeal is likely to fare (currently NetChoice v. Paxton but it'll presumably be consolidated with the FL version as well)? My sense is that this court has been extremely friendly to corporate speech over the years, the counsel for the appellants are all FedSoc guys (ex-TX Solicitor Generals and Clement). The argumentation in the application is all pretty conservative -- lots of citations of Thomas and Kavanaugh in particular in the case law. I'm not a lawyer but I have a policy background and research interests which overlap U.S. speech law, so I feel reasonably well equipped to read the application and it seems like a legal slam dunk. Moreover, the people who drafted the law shot their mouths off in public in all kinds of incriminating ways. From a political frame, it seems like the liberals would want to strike down the law because it's an "own the libs" law and the conservatives would want to strike down the law because it's a massive restriction on corporate speech that doesn't even pretend to be viewpoint-neutral. The person who would seem politically most likely to carry water for the law, Thomas, is also the person whose jurisprudence the law cuts against most firmly. But it's pretty rare that there's a case that comes up for cert that would divide red meat Trumpites from everyone else, conservatives included, and I suspect it's the first of many obviously unconstitutional trial balloons designed to test how on-board the court is with Trumpier state policy. It seems really insane to think that the court would ever hold "It's okay to compel a wide swath of private companies to distribute political speech against their will in a viewpoint non-neutral way and further punish them if they decide not to operate in the state in response to the law." Am I missing something? Man Plan Canal fucked around with this message at 10:49 on May 17, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2022 10:47
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:not just legally, but constitutionally protected! so between this, Citizens United and the fact that bribing of politicians is essentially legal as long as there is no "explicit" quid pro quo does anyone believe we don't live in an dystopian oligarchy? Not even counting all the other calvinball that is some bullshit
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2022 11:22
|
|
|
Look who he's sitting next to jfc https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1526215424874008576?s=20&t=jS02O0kQC5WbNY04pxEKwg Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 13:26 on May 17, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2022 13:18
|
|
|
"It really is good to be me." says the most gently caress you got mine guy on the bench before deep laughter.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2022 14:12
|
|
|
Infinite screaming https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1526550792769048576 https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1526551615309758465 Roberts will go down in history as one of if not the worst chief justices of the modern era.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2022 14:15
|
|
|
The idea that money is speech is so laughably stupid you wouldn't buy it in a satire.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2022 14:20
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Look who he's sitting next to jfc So today? Also, a man still mad that a women stood up to him.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2022 14:29
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/ArizonaDumpster/status/1526228288762531842 The guy the dissented in Lawrence and repeatedly said there is no right to privacy is the reason you have the right to privacy in your home  E: Whoops, Lawrence! Stickman fucked around with this message at 01:09 on May 18, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2022 23:05
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:So today? His job was always been to replace thurgood Marshall with a relatable conservative vote. He’s excellent at his job.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 00:18
|
|
|
Stickman posted:https://mobile.twitter.com/ArizonaDumpster/status/1526228288762531842 Caniglia is their go to example, the one with a unanimous ruling.....what would we ever do without him on the bench
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 00:47
|
|
|
It's always about guns' rights!
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 01:13
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Infinite screaming Bold of you to assume there will be a civilization left standing that has the ability to read by the time he’s gone. These people should count their blessings that the worst they’ve gotten is some protests outside their homes.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 04:53
|
|
|
More and more it's obvious that Idiocracy was far too kind and Don't Look Up was not satire.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 05:04
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:More and more it's obvious that Idiocracy was far too kind and Don't Look Up was not satire. President Camacho at least cared about fixing problems and puts the best man on the job instead of just pure grifters for billionaires like modern republicans.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 07:09
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Infinite screaming It’s kind of amazing that it’s not unthinkable that within our lifetime, society may well go back to the concept of “your income = how strong your vote is”. I mean, in a roundabout way it kind of works like that what with the ultra rich spending infinite amounts on lobbyism groups, but I honestly don’t think it’s off the table than America will just go full hog and revert to 19th century election policies.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 08:08
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1527010591898050560?s=20&t=_MxOxnGVHqkSSvcmfe4kqQ
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 20:48
|
|
|
LOL I expected that to be somewhat legalese with the "SEC can't do it's job" buried somewhere out of the way but there it is in plain English for not-a-lawyer me to see.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 20:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 00:56 |
|
|
SCOTUS will make the determination that Congress cannot delegate any policy decisions to the various agencies, rendering all of them useless and powerless and undoing decades of policies, rules, progress, and enforcement actions null and void. They really do want to dismantle the administrative state.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 21:23
|
|
