|
Paul MaudDib posted:The big money has gone to PACs in the past because of individual and aggregate limits on how much could be directly given to the candidate (or given to the party for distribution to candidates). This ruling kills the aggregate limits, so you can give the individual maximum to every candidate, and since the limit on giving to parties was aggregate-based there's now also no limit on how much can be given to the party (who can turn around and give it to the candidate). This is incorrect. There's a separate limit on party giving (32,400 per committee of which there are three.) It's still a problem but it's more a harbinger than the apocalypse.
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 22:51 |
|
|
UberJew posted:Not if the donations are to a 501(c), or more likely in the future to a JFC (except in the latter case if the donor earmarks their donations for a specific candidate, as long as they do not there is no disclosure mandate) Note that in the event that a donor maxed out to multiple committees, there's a reasonable argument that an inferred aggregate limit exists based on the inference that a max out donation to a committee is intended to be distributed to the candidates (since there's a separate maximum on party committee donations and on non-party committees) and thus the donor can reasonably infer they are donating to a candidate in excess of the individual limit. There is still an effective aggregate limit, it's just that now it's basically #candidates*candidate limit + #party committees*party limit + #ofpacs that DO NOT contribute or coordinate at all*pac limit. (Remember that your donations are attributable to a candidate even if donated to a committee if you know "that a substantial portion will be contributed to, or expended on behalf of, that candidate for the same election".) You might be able to get the inference in on party committees as well if you're doing a max-out candidate donation separately. Most likely outcome is donors give a max out on the total candidate limit to the party committees for distribution, split up as they like (with separate effective aggregate maxes for the chamber-specific committees in theory.). Which gives the party more power and reduces superPAC influence since donors can donate more in an attributable manner, which on net is probably a good thing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Yeah, compare rural TN with rural MA if you want a fair comparison, or urban TN to urban MA. Boston's cost of living is about 60% higher than Nashville's and employers pay about 15% more for equivalent jobs. So your 50k Nashville family could expect to make 57.5k if they moved to Boston! Hurray! Too bad they'd need to make 80k to maintain an equivalent lifestyle.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:You don't have to live in the most expensive ones either, bub. You're doing that thing people do with NYC, where they act as if uber trendy Manhattan neighborhoods and the Towns are the only viable places for a job in Manhattan, eliding the tons of much cheaper places in and outside the city. So how much cheaper would it be for someone in Nashville to live forty five minutes outside of the city and commute to work instead of living in the trendy neighborhoods in the city near their job? Apples to apples only works as a criticism if you actually compare apples to apples.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Justus posted:The IRS credits .50/mi for business-related transportation write-offs, so based on my 20 mile round commute, I'm saving $10 EVERY DAY I make the commute by bike. No, you're committing tax fraud by writing it off. Your commuting costs to and from your workplace are considered personal expenses, not deductible business-related transportation. Take a look at the instructions for IRS Form 2106, specifically line 2: "The expenses of commuting to and from work are not deductible." (There are some minor exceptions for temporary workplaces and for people who normally telework but infrequently have to commute.)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:What he's saying is using the IRS's number he's saving that by not having a car; not that he's claiming that on his taxes. Eh, yeah, could read it that way too. It's a silly thing to say, though, since by his logic it costs me the same to commute by transit as it would to drive. (Before parking, at least, though I can pay parking pretax.) It also ignores bike upkeep and depreciation, which the IRS folds into their .50 per mile value for car travel ( unsure if the IRS also folds in the initial capital cost.). Sure, they're not incredibly expensive, but if you're going to do math, do it right. (But, okay , it's likely he's not committing tax fraud.)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:As far as I know, none of the currently implemented school voucher systems in the US allow kids to choose another public school to attend. The way they've been implemented is that families under a certain income threshold can choose to take their kids out of their local public school and get a voucher to enroll them at a private one. Washington DC does, sort of - it's a district-wide lottery for public and public charter schools, with a right to attend your neighborhood school. Not really a voucher system though, just public school choice.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
Neremworld posted:Unfortunately being consistently terrible isn't really praiseworthy, so it doesn't fully answer his question. Thomas is probably the most interesting person on the court as far as legal philosophy goes. The rest of the Court pretty much falls into fairly standard philosophical lines, and compromises them when they want to. Thomas's philosophy is unique on the Court, and relatively unique in the legal profession, and absolutely deserves admiration even if you don't agree with it; at the end of the day, he's probably the member of this edition of the Court who has made the most contribution to legal philosophy. Only stupid people think Thomas is unprincipled or stupid. (Only uneducated or inattentive people think Scalia is smart, on the other hand.)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2014 13:22
|
|
|
SumYungGui posted:I kinda understand that so I, sadly, understand where a lot of the more social rulings going along ideological lines come from. Stuff like 'welp no racism in this country, better get rid of the protections!' It just seems that there's the same kind of direct we-own-you-do-what-we-say behavior when it comes to many of the rulings related to business. That kind of activity has become par for the course for bought and sold elected politicians and it's pretty easy to trace lines along 'Pass the laws we give you and we pay for your election'. Just seems a much more tenuous relationship for Justices. 'Make the rulings we want and we'll have our guys choose you once years ago and then you're set for life.' Most of the Court's business-related rulings are rulings that interpret laws made by Congress. If you assume Congress is controlled by business, then why would you assume they're writing laws the Court can interpret not to be friendly to business? (Your entire analysis of Congress/elections as "bought" is simplistic and wrong, but I'm done having that argument on these forums.)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
SumYungGui posted:Ah, I didn't know they were clarifying rulings made by congress. I thought all the cases that came to them were through lower courts. I can see how ruling on cases coming from institutions like that would cause that sort of outcome. The more you know! The cases are coming through lower courts... which interpret laws made by Congress. There's limits to what you can do with a corporate-friendly law. And what you're missing about the elected officials is that they get money (though less than you think, and not to them but to their campaigns) from lots of businesses which generally do not have unitary interests, but their staff do not. And staff make most of the decisions. What donations get you is an easier time getting a meeting with more senior staff; it's helpful, especially when there isn't a counter-interest speaking to the staff, but it's access, not influence.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2014 14:43
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:But access is influence? If one party gets to make their argument to the legislature and nobody else does, or one party gets a day and everyone else gets ten minutes . . . There's plenty of literature out there on how access rarely equals influence on the issues people care about enough that there's significant discussion; where access is influence is on issues where only one side cares enough to speak, so there's no counter-information to be had. Access is a predicate for influence (though access isn't predicated on money). That said, no matter how much money Comcast gives Al Franken, he's not going to vote for their mergers, and no matter how much money GLAAD gives John Cornyn, he's not going to embrace gay marriage.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:This is somewhat true where by "people" you mean "people who can donate large amounts of money." Unfortunately, a more accurate definition of "people" probably includes those who cannot afford to donate to political campaigns. No, it means people such as interest groups like the ACLU, EFF, and similar as well as large companies. Lobbyists aren't restricted to corporations - interest groups employ lobbying as well, and often to greater effect. And actually individuals do sometimes lobby, though they tend not to be able to donate large amounts of time which is the real prerequisite to effective lobbying, not large amounts of money. (And if you ask a lobbyist what's effective, the money or the time they spend talking, they will tell you the time, every time. Even Abramoff admits that if you read the details, he's just a loudmouth who likes to dress it up.)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
Nessus posted:So if it's just a question of time being effective, then, why don't all these big money hustlers just sponsor modest but loud lobbying groups to go bug people? Why would these people, who I will grant are reasonably intelligent if not all-consuming Promethean fonts of industry captaincy, blow such huge wads of money on political campaigns? If you're referring to people like Adelsson, it's because they're idiots. The smarter ones do, in fact, sponsor modest but loud lobbying groups to go bug people, or they do it themselves (the most effective lobbyist is your friend, and for better or worse, Congresspeople are friends with rich people.) Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Those interest groups can't make campaign contributions unless they have an affiliated PAC taking contributions from individuals. And yet they have no problem whatsoever getting access to and influencing Congress... almost like access and money aren't actually as effective as people think they are in comparison to effort and time spent talking and building relationships... Anyway, this is an argument I've had multiple times in this thread and it's predecessors and I'm not convincing anyone. I worked in the Senate, it doesn't work the way you think, you're not going to believe me no matter what I say, so I will drop it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Explain to me how I get to spend time talking and building a relationship with a congressman or senator, or his or her staff, without having a. access and b. money - if nothing else the money to be in Washington DC and doing this for a living. Same advice I've given numerous times on these forums: call and ask. If it's your Senator or Rep, they will 100% have a state office, with staff, in your state. Probably listed on their website. Senators (depending on the state) may have anywhere from 2-8 offices (for example, Cornyn has a DC office and 7 Texas offices, while Sanders has 1 in DC and 2 in Vermont). Some Senators will list their contact numbers on their sites: for example, Bernie is http://www.sanders.senate.gov/contact/scheduling-requests Call them. Politely explain that you'd like to set up a meeting with a staffer and what you'd like to talk about. If they say state staff don't handle the issue, ask if they can set up a phone conference with the DC staff that do. Be polite but clear; like most people in Congress, schedulers are incredibly underpaid for how hard they work and they put up with a ton of bullshit. You'll get scheduled if you're nice to the scheduler and can explain what you want to talk about. Persistence helps. If you aren't a constituent (i.e. you want to talk to another Senator or Rep), it's harder, but you might still be able to set up a call with the DC staff. Try lying about being a donor if you really think it matters (again, I don't) - I've never heard of schedulers checking, though ours didn't care in the slightest, and staffers generally don't care if you donate or not. Note how nothing here requires money, and access is obtainable by asking? No requirement to be in DC? As a practical matter, if you can bring a signature sheet with you (bunch of constituents signed on to show that they care about the issue), it'll help with making them pay more attention to your issue, but even if it's just you, you can wield some influence on a staffer. And end of the day, that staffer (in conjunction with their state or DC counterpart) is the one who is going to tell the Senator what they think the truth of the matter is and how they should handle it. Now, if you do this regularly, are generally a good person to deal with, refrain from accusing them of being an establishment tool, and provide them with useful perspective (or even better, information), they'll start thinking of you as a friend, and your words will carry more weight. Congratulations - you're a lobbyist. Campaign finance is a smokescreen; the reason that campaign finance correlates to success legislatively is because people with money to spend on campaign finance also tend to be the people who can afford to/are in a position to lobby. (And if you want to try to set up a meeting with the politican themself without going to DC, it's harder, but possible - they're back in their state pretty much every weekend and for significant chunks of time throughout the year. Check the Senate/House calendars for "state work period" times.) Kalman fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Apr 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Nessus posted:When, during business hours? The same hours where I am quite likely working? Well, not quite so likely any more, but you get my point. My access/cash comment was more directed to your own reps - talking to someone who doesn't represent you is definitely harder if you aren't local to either DC or their state. You should almost certainly be able to set up something with your own person. Yeah, it requires time and the ability to get to their state office, but honestly, I'm not sure what you want at that point - how exactly are they supposed to be influenced by you if you can't spend any time to do it? I mean, even in an ideal system, you're going to need to spend some time (or money to an interest group to spend time on your behalf) to convey your desires, or else how are they supposed to know? Money is an advantage in that it allows people to pay people to spend time on their behalf, sure. I will 100% agree with that. But there are aggregator public interest groups who lobby on issues if you can't spend the time and want to contribute something. quote:So how come they put so much work and effort into making it easier and easier to do it, over the course of decades, then? Because it does help a bit in accessing people who aren't your own representatives and they have a lot of money to spare so why not? (Also because there are some rich idiots out there who think it works more effectively than it does in practice.) Again, the real way influence is wielded is in interpersonal relationships between lobbyists and representatives and their staffs. If you go to a 100% publicly financed campaign system, that won't change. Basically: Good luck banning knowing people.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Caros posted:Kalman, what is your take on Chris Christie's slobbering blow job of Sheldon adelson? In particular, how Christie had to Back pedal like a madman after his comment that he flew over the 'occupied' Territories in Israel? Just going to throw out here that Adelson wasn't the only one making noise about using the word "occupied" and Christie retracted it because he didn't want the people who fundraise for him to be irritable. Also going to throw out there that retracting a statement is very different from changing policy - does anyone really think that Christie was going to back the PA over Israel and only decided not to because Adelson made noise? (That said, I know nothing more than anyone here does about presidential politics and the interaction of money and policy there. I know a decent amount about how it works in the Senate, and some about how it works in the House. There may be differences in the presidential, state, and local contexts.) Kalman fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Apr 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
ReindeerF posted:Hell, I have friends who are Congressional staff and researchers and things who've then gone on to become lobbyists. They'll paper over it a bit, but they pretty freely admit that the reason they can make the leap is that they can get access for other people and that their networks of access with people they're connected to have value. Knowledge of process and other things are also important, of course, I wouldn't deny that obviously, but without the connections you're just someone who knows how stuff works. That sort of access is qualitatively different from the access that campaign donations obtains, and far more valuable. And also essentially impossible to ban. Like I said, good luck banning knowing someone.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Reality posted:This seems pretty relevant. But not as bad as the science in that article. http://mischiefsoffaction.blogspot.com/2014/03/on-money-buying-access.html
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:This "criticism" is far worse than anything in the original article. Let's go through his own points: I note you ignored the "and other research has come up with completely opposite results" part of that post.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:So what you're saying is he's personable. That's not necessarily the same thing as saying he's bright. Christ. Not all intelligence is "beep boop I am good at logic and math" intelligence. I mean, there's a lot of academic debate as to exactly how many facets intelligence can be classed into, but it's pretty recognized (I think, psych folks feel free to correct) that interpersonal relationships require a certain type of intelligence.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
Gygaxian posted:Mike Lee really loves pirates (as in the "aaarr" type, he's repeatedly talked about his dream of getting a letter of marquee one day). But that's about it. Mike Lee has (had? been a while) a bunch of legitimately nice staff, so my guess is the guy is personally okay, even if his politics suck (staff tend to reflect their Senator's personality). SedanChair posted:Grades make you smart? Failing in business makes you dumb? This is all news to me. Don't forget that if he hadn't been a Bush he would have amounted to nothing (because you can't fail miserably if you start from nothing while being brilliant.)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Also, only a portion of the Senate is up for election at a time; they're staggered so that there's elections for the Senate in some states but not others at any given election year. And specifically so that no state ever has both Senators up for reelection at the same time. Every state has two elections on, one election off for the Senate (ignoring odd year elections here), and the states are on different schedules so that in any given election cycle 1/3 of the Senate is in reelect mode. This is actually the source of one major procedural difference between the House and the Senate (and part of why the filibuster has held on as tenaciously as it has) - since the House is technically a new house every 2 years no matter what, they have to readopt new rules each time. Senate rules continue because the Senate is treated as a continuous body - no need to readopt, you have to specifically vote to change them.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I've offended you? That's terrible! You are a complete idiot. Even the majority of Obama's political opponents, who had no problem making comments about Bill and Hillary or really any other politician's relationships, won't go near the Obamas' relationship. It's pretty clear they actually love one another to everyone except, apparently, you and the guy who keeps saying he and Obama had coke-fueled gay sex.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
Joementum posted:There are currently 11 dynastic Senators: the Udalls (D-CO and D-NM), Begich (D-AK), Manchin (D-WV), Rockefeller (D-WV), Casey (R-PA), Pryor (D-AR), Paul (R-KY), Boozman (R-AR), Landrieu (D-LA), and Murkowski (R-AK), where "dynastic" is defined by relatives being elected to Congress, cabinet position, or high office in the state. It's interesting that this includes both Senators in AK, AR, and WV, though Rockefeller will be retiring after this year. Also interesting how many are Democrats who face tough re-elections. There were also no new dynastic Senators elected in 2012. Technically the Levins in Michigan also, though Carl is gone soon.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:AP is saying a judge just struck down Wisconsin voter ID law I know one of the lawyers involved, the AP story is accurate. The laws were struck down under the VRA Section 2 claims only, not the constitutional claims (though with dicta that they'd have won on the constitutional claims also). Reading a copy of the opinion is my afternoon snack. Ahahaha: "as the plaintiffs unrebutted evidence shows, a person would have to be insane to commit voter-impersonation fraud." Kalman fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Apr 29, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Do you think no one is going to remember a serious attempt to dismantle social security? You are massively overestimating the memory, political interest, and general intelligence of the American public. D&D is not representative.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:THe problem I have with the 5-4 ruling in Galloway vs Greece is that it is still a public endorsement of religion over non-religion. The (all Catholic) majority seems to say its alright since it isn't specifically endorsing ONE religion over others, and since the issue was changed from endorsing religion over all to endorsing one PARTICULAR religion, they have sufficiently clouded the waters to allow the prayers to continue based on tradition. It is telling when the testifying plaintiff said they could not find a non-religious person to hold a similar prayer-that should really be irrelevant. IT isn't that atheists don't feel they aren't getting their "fair share", its that there shouldn't be anything to have a fair share of. Since the conservative justices casually ignored that part of it, they can finagle their religiosity into the public sphere under the guise of "fair treatment". Just to be clear, there were 9 votes for the idea that legislative prayer is okay; the dissent just felt that the town needed to be more inclusive in the concept of legislative prayer, not that the concept was unconstitutional.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:The "liberal" party agreed to cut food stamps to try and flex their bipartisan credentials. Of course, if they hadn't agreed then there wouldn't have been any food stamps when the bill wasn't renewed.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
420DD Butts posted:Herbicide, fungicide, and pesticide resistance certainly does help when you're attempting to plant only one variety of a plant over a large tract of land. It allows you to do so without worrying about damage to the crop which would normally happen in lieu of those herbicides or any collateral damage that would come about from use of a herbicide. At an even more basic level it promotes herbicide use, which is decidedly not good for the environment. It helps prop up the system we currently have and does nothing to dissuade us from either A) planting a field of one variety of soybean or grain or B) using herbicides indiscriminately. We have a whole thread full of discussion on GMO seeds that might educate you as to where you're wrong. (For one thing, GMO crops reduce both the amount of pesticide needed and the toxicity of the pesticides used.) http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3556746&perpage=40&pagenumber=39 There you might also learn that GMO companies enforce certain planting regimens to minimize potential harms, that monocultures aren't because of GMO companies offering single varieties but rather because farmers want predictability in their fields, and even a bit about how patenting genes in plants works!
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
ATP_Power posted:I'm not the most read on this, and there's a lot of noise out there, but I'd start here. At this point, I think it's safer to assume that any multinational megacorp has lovely business practices than not. Yeah, that's actually a pretty typical rap sheet for a large corporation. (Also, ha, Syngenta accusing someone else of attempting to monopolize markets.) 420DD Butts posted:Also, for added hilarity: I haven't even typed the word Monsanto once (well, til now), fishmech. I responded to one poster asking about Monsanto with a link to a news story about their activities. Except my claim is accurate - glyphosate is far less toxic to animals than a number of other common herbicides, which contributes to it being preferable to use glyphosate over other herbicides. And because you have a highly effective herbicide available, you use less of it for the same effect. Total usage goes up, usage per acre goes down. http://www.weeds.iastate.edu/mgmt/2006/glyphosatetrans.shtml http://www.agweb.com/assets/import/files/ao273f.pdf http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2012/10/do-genetically-engineered-crops-really-increase-herbicide-use/comment-page-1/ (showing why Benbrooks paper is fatally flawed) http://appliedweeds.cfans.umn.edu/pubs/Ten%20Years%20of%20Roundup%20Ready.pdf Basically, glyphosate triggered a significant reduction in overall usage and a targeted reduction in the worst kinds (soil-applied residuals), while being less toxic than most other herbicides. As resistant weed strains have emerged it's become less effective, but that doesn't mean that overall it isn't significantly better than it's predecessor options.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 22:51 |
|
|
mooyashi posted:Official Snack of the White House Is technically M&Ms.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 00:13
|
|