|
Main Paineframe posted:Actually, it seems like they're mostly concerned with legal minutae that the Slate article, being heavy on alarmism and light on citing the judges' actual legal reasoning, neglected to mention. The actual ruling appears to hang on three basic points: The problem is that the entire doctrine of asset forfeiture is medieval nonsense with as little inherent logic as charging a tree with murder because its branches fell and killed someone.
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 02:30 |
|
|
twodot posted:You're going to need to elaborate on this, I can imagine several arguments you might be making, many of them would be based on conflating different things that have similar names. To start with you might raise an objection to Kagan's description of why forfeiture is good in this very case. If you look at the history of asset forfeiture decisions, the original modern asset forfeiture decisions from the Prohibition era took as their precedents a bunch of admiralty-law decisions from (I think?) the 1700's and 1800's that allowed legal proceedings against ships. The reasoning of those decisions was partly based on a sort of proto-corporate-liability doctrine for the ship, and partly based on various medieval common-law decisions based on the concept of deodand. quote:The English common law of deodands traces back to the 11th century and was applied, on and off, until Parliament finally abolished it in 1846.[2] Under this law, a chattel (i.e. some personal property, such as a horse or a hay stack) was considered a deodand whenever a coroner's jury decided that it had caused the death of a human being.[3] In theory, deodands were forfeit to the crown, which was supposed to sell the chattel and then apply the profits to some pious use.[4] (The term deodand derives from the Latin phrase "deo dandum" which means "to be given to God.") In reality, the juries who decided that a particular animal or object was a deodand also appraised its value and the owners were expected to pay a fine equal to the value of the deodand. If the owner could not pay the deodand, his township was held responsible.[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deodand So there's a continuous legal line that can be traced from modern asset forfeiture law back to medieval idiots charging trees and horse-carts with murder because they fell over on someone. All these decisions share the same basic absurdities: 1) that it's conceptually valid to charge an inanimate object with a crime, and 2) the rights of the owner of that object then evaporate because you aren't charging the owner, you're charging the thing owned! It's a nonsensical legal fiction that, if it ever made sense, only did so in pre-modern Admiralty courts as a sort of working substitute for a corporate liability law that hadn't been developed yet, but that has survived into the modern era because it makes it easy for the police to confiscate poo poo. hobbesmaster posted:The supreme court says thats a legislative decision not a judicial one. Well, yes. I mean I realize that the courts aren't going to actually overturn this system. But until there's significant further legislative reform we're going to keep getting decisions like this, because there's no good alternative for the courts in the asset forfeiture arena -- there are too many clearly established judicial precedents by now. It's a case where the long-term interest of the police forces and judicial system in preserving a source of government revenue has systematically eroded defendant's property rights over time, and because our judicial system requires you to have a good deal of property in order to have much chance of protecting any other rights you might have, well, we get decisions like this. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Mar 1, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:civil forfeiture / criminal forfeiture This is what I get for shooting my mouth off without actually reading the thread and the linked cases that closely!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
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? No chance till new justices.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
axeil posted:Is Congress able to write legislation they know is going against a court ruling to specifically attempt to get a new ruling on an issue? Sure, but does that seem likely?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 16:41
|
|
" moment.
|
Radish posted:Right now it's a coin flip. Everything I've seen over the past week or two has said it's more of a 60-40 lean Republican.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:So if both the House AND Senate become Republican majorities... how much damage would we see come out of that? I know anything progressive is off the table but would the Dem minority at least be able to stonewall any regressionist policy? I'm pretty terrified personally due to fears that we'd get into another government shutdown / debt default situation and without some sane people in charge of at least one chamber we'd have at best massive eviscerations of public services. I mean, hell, Paul Ryan's new budget turns medicaid into a block grant. He couldn't lay out a plan to kill more poor people if he were explicitly building gas chambers.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
I'm not sure that shareholders have enough real power in terms of corporate business decisions to make that concern "stick.". It does seem like a real issue for public corporations though, especially if you get a religious CEO making decisions that adversely impact shareholder value.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Thomas points out that the call wasn't made anonymously, the call was recorded along with the caller id and the caller freely gave their name but the prosecution in the case proceeded as if it was an anonymous call because they didn't want to subpoena the 911 operator and the caller for a suppression hearing. Scalia obsesses over the fact that the tip was anonymous and nobody would anonymously report being in a traffic accident. Scalia often feels entitled to his own facts.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
Daremyth posted:Being singled out as a member of a minority group automatically exposes you to in-group bias, which is a very real thing. Just because someone on the town council never comes out and says "no zoning permits for the impurator" doesn't mean there are no negative consequences. We (as a human race) don't have a stellar record when it comes to impartial treatment of people with whom we disagree. Let's just avoid creating an unnecessary distinction at all during government events! Slaan posted:
This is the sort of thing that falls in the "completely acceptable today, will astonish our descendants in 100 years" category, though. The science on things like cognitive bias is *just now* hitting mainstream discourse; in the meanwhile, decisions like this are for the most part following established precedent. It'll take another twenty or fifty years for ideas like cognitive bias to filter up to the Supreme Court level. I mean, y'all are right, absolutely. But expecting the Supreme Court to listen to those arguments today is kinda overly optimistic. The supreme court justices are old; they don't like new ideas. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 11:30 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 11:25
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:It's weird that the guy is suing under 3A anyway when a 4A unlawful seizure makes way more sense. Well, I imagine the unlawful seizure was temporary so his damages on a pure property/seizure claim might be minimal, and I imagine the state might have some sort of "sudden emergency" defense given the situation. The 3rd lets him go hog-wild and make whatever arguments he wants, because there's no case law against him. But without reading up on the case at all my best guess is he's just a libertarian/tea party type acting pro se.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Going in other direction, imagine a government tried to quarter someone totally non-military in someone's home --- say a water quality expert for the EPA or something. Surely that would be inapporuate taking? Seems to me the 3rd is mostly redundant and exists because that was a particular thing the British did. Well, I think the 3rd is also important in that it's a large basis for the general right of privacy -- most of the important citations to the 3rd amendment are in support of the whole "penumbra of rights" theory that establishes the right to privacy. It's not just about the taking of the property; it's about having a dude living in your house listening to what you say and watching who you talk to. Change "water quality expert" to "NYPD Muslim Surveillance Task Force Member" and the point leaps out at you. That's not something the government should be able to get a warrant to do, period; there's no good reason for it. A personal pet theory of mine is that at some point someone's going to make an argument against government surveillance based on the 3rd. It's right there. It's just that in the colonial era, in order to impose mass surveillance you had to actually stick a soldier in everyone's home, instead of just sticking in a microphone and a camera (or an xbox and a wiretap).
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Looks like I was wrong- and it's cited in Griswold, too. That said, I still feel like there are more applicable constitutional doctrines. Hey, give me some credit, I at least have enough sense to actually check Griswold before I make a post like that :P Though I don't think we actually disagree all that much. The 3rd amendment is still mostly a historical relic. I was just pointing out that it does have some limited role in constitutional jurisprudence beyond that, almost wholly through Griswold and the successor cases to Griswold. I also think that it's at least interesting, if only as an intellectual exercise, to consider whether or not the 3rd amendment has renewed applicability in our new era of mass cheap surveillance. Is the government using your Xbox to spy on you, something the Snowden documents reveal is at least possible, all that different from the government actually stationing a soldier to live in your home?
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Depends on what the original theory of the 3rd Amendment was. While Griswold and co may cite it for privacy arguments, the current Court isn't going to go for that - they'll limit it sharply to actually imposing the physical presence of a soldier in a home, which was the original intent. Yeah, that's true. Cheekio posted:I thought the implicit concern when quartering Redcoats was that they wouldn't be bound by local law enforcement, so in practice nothing would be stopping them from taking liberty with your wife and daughters. Maybe I've been watching too much Game of Thrones, but in my mind the problem is that they're psuedo-foreign soldiers just as much as turning my home into a temporary B&B. Well, that's the thing. It's not like there's just one reason for each of the Amendments; restrictions on the press are bad for plenty of reasons, not just because we want to allow printers to print attacks on King George without getting charged with treason. Similarly here I think a population that had actually had enemy soldiers forcibly living in their homes would have a lot of different reasons why they weren't fans of that practice. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 20:11 on May 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I haven't read the decision yet, but if Pom prevailed, it's going to be a Very Bad Thing. The company is known for their own deceptive and overly broad health effect claims; these most recent suits have been specifically over applying flavor labeling in a way the FDA hadn't intended- which is, again, a Bad Thing. They'll be using it to prevent anyone else from marketing juice blends or artificial flavored products in a way that will really badly disturb food labeling law. If it has the effect of cleaving FDA and FTC positions on these practices, that's even worse. Well, it's bad in that it makes the standards confusing but why is it bad for consumers? It would seem that the logical defense to these suits would be to actually label your products honestly -- i.e., don't sell grape juice with blueberry flavoring as "blueberry juice," even if technically allowed to by FDA rules. If you're going to sell blueberry juice make it with real blueberries?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:
I think Kennedy being fooled by the labeling seems appropriate, and relative amount of juice seems like an extremely significant detail to me. If I buy something labeled "orange juice" I don't expect to get 99% apple with an artificial orange flavoring added. Hell, I'm not sure I'd have a problem with requiring simulated flavoring to be explicitly labeled as such in all cases. I get what you're saying about POM being a bad actor but sometimes the devil quotes scripture. This may be a case where the better remedy would've been improved FDA regulation instead of a judicial remedy, but the problem of things being labelled blueberry juice that don't have any significant amount of actual blueberry in them seems significant, especially if people are buying juices for supposed health benefits of particular fruits rather than for flavor. I mean, poo poo, switch the context. If this were 99% rat meat with beef flavoring being sold as "ground beef" no one would think twice before grabbing the pitchforks. Just because something is accepted industry practice doesn't mean it isn't a giant con of consumers that should be shut down. Truth in labeling should mean actual truth, i.e., the actual prohibition of practices that would deceive an ordinary consumer. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Jun 12, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
If Obama adjourned congress by fiat it would turn the crazy conspiracy dial all the way to like eleventy-one.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
alnilam posted:If I wanted to be pedantic, could I claim that "established by the state" could just as well mean the state as in the government, rather than the state as in one of the 50 states? Or is there a particular legal definition in play here? I know it doesn't matter as they found other reasons, I'm just curious. No, you're absolutely correct. That's part of why this faux-issue wasn't raised earlier. Edit: oh, it was defined? Still seems like a drafting error then. Someone forgot they were using a defined term.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:like hello john roberts, this is history speaking, direct election of senators was done before the 17th: One of Robert's clerks must be really dropping the ball on research this session.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Yeah, I was just being slow. And no, I don't think he's been floated. I do agree that there's virtually zero chance of her being confirmed. The only Obama appointee this Congress would confirm is Scalia's reanimated corpse.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Thread title's gotten kinda weird.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2016 09:17
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:penumbras just means 'this is implied but not directly stated' Yeah, this is one of those things that's only difficult to grasp if you're thinking too much like an attorney and not enough like a normal person. Even for an "originalist," the central debate at the time of the passage of the Bill of Rights was over whether or not there should even be such a list, because of the implication that rights not listed might not count, which is why the 9th and 10th amendments exist.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
At this point Congress has the power to do whatever it can get away with.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Seriously, you guys, every single thing Obama does is not some evidence of some secret characteristic showing how he behaves in every circumstance and the nature of the Democratic Party. Obama is playing to the current political and judicial circumstances, and still making a decent decision. He's not replacing RBG with Garland, he's replacing Scalia. He's trying to shift the court from 4 liberals, 1 libertarian, and 4 conservatives to 4 liberals, 1 moderate, 1 libertarian, and 3 conservatives which is actually a huge shift. This is also why the GOP are freaking out so much, they're losing their quorum of 4 reliable conservatives on the court and would be extremely vulnerable to 5-4 or even 6-3 rulings against them in upcoming cases. Plus let's not forget Obama isn't actually a socialist. He's a moderately center-left liberal. So, it appears, is Garland. Garland's probably exactly what he wants. edit: in addition to being the right choice for this political moment, as someone left wing enough to fit what Obama wants while moderate enough to make the Republicans look bad.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Again if Garland was exactly what he wants, he'd have nominated him before. Garland is clearly a compromise choice. Compromise vs. what? Appointing Sotomayor twice? Prior candidates are removed from the pool. If last time Garland was his 2nd choice and if the first time Garland was his 3rd choice, now Garland would be his first choice.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
alnilam posted:Has the issue of the inadequacy of the public defender system ever come before SCOTUS? If you can get something appealed to the Supreme Court, it is relatively unlikely you have inappropriate counsel, so . . . But I expect that to be quoted in a lot of appellate briefs real soon.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:That Muslim inmate from a term or two ago was pro se right up until the SCOTUS granted his petition. I think someone argued for him before the SCOTUS though. Yeah it happens but how many successful out of how many filed? The successful pro se litigant at that level is a unicorn. More to the point, though, if you've successfully appealed to the Supreme Court as a pro se litigant, you arguably had access to competent counsel the entire time -- yourself (even if you were actually represented by an incompetent public defender at trial, that was your choice to accept that representation). Therefore, at least as to the particular appellant, the issue is moot. I don't know enough about criminal law to know if this argument has validity -- it's facile as gently caress -- but it seems like an obvious barrier, and the Court has in the past accepted incredibly facile arguments when it suited policy goals (as the entire doctrine of asset forfeiture demonstrates). Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Mar 31, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
That has to be early april fool's, right?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Not really. The appellate counsel just offers to represent someone at the appellate level after they defended themselves or had a public defender at trial, appealing based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Happens all the time in the death penalty context. But death penalty cases are getting rarer (thankfully) and outside of death penalty cases there is very, very little public assistance out there to provide attorneys for criminal defendants at the appellate level. (To my knowledge that's something that's really only available in death penalty cases). There are a lot of pro se criminal appeals, and they almost always -- ninety nine out of a hundred or worse -- go nowhere. Of course when we're talking Supreme Court the numbers may be so small anyway that even the relatively small pool of death penalty cases is relatively large compared to the pool of cases that reach the Supreme Court.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
I think at the end of the day "the entire public defender system in America is so drastically underfunded that thousands of people are effectively not getting counsel" is one of those arguments that is at the same time obviously true to the casual observer and an argument whose legitimacy courts are almost never going to recognize due to the inherent biases and nature of the legal system. It's akin to acknowledging that the drug war was a horrible crime against humanity, or that probably 5-10% of convicted criminals are in fact innocent and wrongfully convicted, or that the justice system as a whole is so racist that it's an open question as to whether or not it's possible for a black male to get a fair trail. If the court system acknowledged its truth it would delegitimize the courts themselves as institutions and judges themselves as professionals, so it's not going to happen (or at least not without a much more radically left wing Supreme Court than we have now). Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Apr 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
The Larch posted:Isn't he of the opinion that oral arguments are pointless since everything is being submitting in writing anyways? I can't exactly say he's wrong there. You might be surprised how often judges can misread or misunderstand something written clearly in plain English.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Part of the problem is that (unlike at the federal level) the extensive luxury gifts were clearly legal for McDonnell. Well, they're both right. It's both obviously corrupt *and* completely typical.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
euphronius posted:How could you not say donations of money to political causes is not protected under the 1st amendment. It's crazy to think it would not be. Sure, but that protection isn't absolute. Otherwise "I am donating to your campaign if you promise to pardon me for the bank robbery I just committed" would be legal. Protection isn't absolute. Here it looks like there is pretty good evidence of a quid pro quo which is the hallmark of what should be illegal under anyone's definition. My guess is that the Supreme Court has gotten spooked by the populist backlash against Citizen's United and is taking this case as an opportunity to retrench a bit and say that some things are still illegal. Either that or we're about to enter corruption thunderdome.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Is there good evidence of a quid pro quo? I'm not that familiar with the case, but from the NPR article it looks like Williams didn't benefit from his contributions at all except for some professional networking. Is a lunch or an introduction or a night in the Lincoln bedroom all it takes? Did I miss something important or is that it? Thing is though -- 1) difference between personal and campaign donations is largely technical. The law won't address this because doing so would upend our whole election system, but especially when candidates are allowed to spend personal funds on campaigns, dollars donated represent personal funds the candidates can save . . . 2) professional networking can be huge. Careers get made and broken by that kind of thing. He got publicity and an apparent government endorsement. Ultimately I think our entire system of campaign finance is rotten to the core. Money is speech but the acceptance of money by any candidate from a known donor creates an unavoidable appearance of corruption. I don't have a good solution to propose, though. My favorite idea was a limit to issue ads only, plus a tax on political ads to fund public financing of campaigns, but that has also been ruled unconstitutional.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I prefer the opposite solution, which is draconian transarency requirements for personal and campaign gifts. I'm pretty sure the majority in CU pointed that this was an option that could be reconciled with the ruling, as well. Thing is I think we're past a point where that could have worked. That only works if public shaming is a factor and at this point it isn't any more; power is so entrenched it doesn't care. Haliburton does what? What happens?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I don't know that that's accurate, honestly. The "bought and paid for" line has worked pretty well this primary season; how much better when there's actual transparency as to who's giving what? That's the thing: there already is, and we can see that it doesn't work. For example, well, Hillary Clinton's speaking fees, yet she's still in the lead and will likely win. Unfortunately, campaign cash is a powerful enough force that it can overwhelm evidence of corruption.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Kalman posted:It shows disclosure does exactly what it's supposed to do - people are aware. Some people care; lots don't. Some don't think that speech fees are actual evidence she is going to favor financial interests. Wait, are you arguing that most or even a plurality of voters make rational decisions based on examination of the facts? Deteriorata posted:Bernie's insinuations of corruption do not reality make. Eh, it's not just Bernie; Elizabeth Warren has laid similar charges. http://billmoyers.com/story/elizabeth-warren-recalls-a-time-when-big-donors-may-have-changed-hillarys-vote/ What really clinched it for me personally was this story though: quote:Returning then to my original question: Why does a non-profit spend 10 per cent of its annual budget, ten times what it would normally pay for a keynote speaker,[12] increase its annual total expense line item for “speaker presentations” from $102,784 to $350,619 for a high-profile politician and present her to an audience probably split in its political loyalties? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/24/1489983/-HRC-s-Final-Paid-Speech-260K-from-the-ACA There's plenty of evidence out there that Hillary is, if not quite up to Scott Walker levels of blatant corruption, "swayable" by campaign donations. quote:What we've actually learned is that campaign cash is almost irrelevant to the success of a candidate. A certain amount is necessary for viability, but there are rapidly diminishing returns after that. There have been a bunch of very high-money candidates that have flopped badly the last few election cycles. That's true but it's not the argument I'm making. There is definitely a money threshold past which additional money does not make candidates more or less successful. However, that says nothing either way about the corrupting influence of said money on said politician (apart from the obvious point that only a winning candidate can engage in quid pro quo behavior). Discendo Vox posted:There isn't. One of the main reasons 501c3s and associated entities proliferate is that they can be used to prevent identifying the sources of their funding. That's true, but there are enough incidents where the donations have been non-anonymous and it hasn't mattered that we can conclude anonymity doesn't make too much difference. It's a rock that keeps tigers away.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Yes, they're spending that money because they think it may get them access. It's not corruption until there is actual evidence that it does. No, it's corruption if does; it's only criminally prosecutable if there's evidence. The two are not the same thing. More to the point, though, they think it gets them access and they are correct. quote:In a recent study, researchers Raquel Alexander and Susan Scholz calculated the total amount the corporations saved from the lower tax rate. They compared the taxes saved to the amount the firms spent lobbying for the law. Their research showed the return on lobbying for those multinational corporations was 22,000 percent. That means for every dollar spent on lobbying, the companies got $220 in tax benefits. http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/01/06/144737864/forget-stocks-or-bonds-invest-in-a-lobbyist quote:Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 Now, I don't want to take this too far -- it's hard from this to conclude that any specific politician or deal is explicitly corrupt. But we can look at the overall pattern and conclude that on the whole these donors must be getting something for their money or they would not keep doing it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Quorum posted:This doesn't follow-- they only have to think they're getting something from it, and that "something" could well be "warm fuzzies." In almost all cases it is not, but mere continuance of the practice doesn't demonstrate that it's always as effective as those who participate would undoubtedly like. I think this argument fails under the "you can't fool all the people all of the time" argument. It's certainly true that sometimes some politicians take money and don't do poo poo, or that some politicians are playing Fistful of Dollars and taking donations from both sides. But we're talking about tens of billions of dollars here; there are only so many suckers out there, much less suckers willing and capable of donating tens of millions of dollars on a recurring basis every campaign cycle. They're getting something for the money or they would eventually have stopped doing it (if only because tossing tens of billions of dollars into a pointless dumpster fire every four years is not a sustainable business model).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 02:30 |
|
|
Kalman posted:Are you talking about campaign finance or lobbying? The two systems are totally different in impact and in how they're treated legally. If you conflate the two you will completely misunderstand both. Both. I think you're overstating the practical differences -- campaign finance opens the door for the salesman, lobbying is the sales pitch. That said the numbers in that post you quoted are for campaign finance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States#Campaign_finance_numbers edit: addenda: http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=4060 Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Apr 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2016 00:10
|
|