Willa Rogers posted:

The last time I donated to the guy who said he'd get the dirty money out of politics he turned around and became the first major-party presidential candidate in modern political history to reject public financing.

A Rambling Vagrant posted:

karlor posted:

this is too much fun

Sheng-ji Yang posted:

zoux posted:

Imagine a world in which Mr. Boyko represented a real challenge to the Republican incumbent. Now imagine the look of the face on the incumbent's staff member when he googled the words "Brian Boyko" for the first time.

zoux posted:

Deputy Chief Technical Officer.

SedanChair posted:

Mentos Dan posted:

Dude's linkedin is amazing:

Xandu posted:

$4,938,640
pledged of $5,000,000 goal
10 hours left

OwlBot 2000 posted:

Everyone's bashing this idea but I don't see what they've got that's any better. Some have even said that "taking money out of politics" doesn't do enough, but that seems like precisely the solution.

Discendo Vox posted:

My prof in election law was Stanley Brand, and he made a very persuasive argument regarding the efficacy of the previous limit system. My own approach to election speech regulation would essentially revolve entirely around extensive, mandatory disclosure and transparency rules, which the decision explicitly said were legally viable. In practice, no one is currently willing to enact such a regime, but it's less likely to be subject to difficulty/variability in enforcement, and less problematic constitutionally, than straight speech limit systems.

dinoputz posted:

My big hope is that MayOne.us coverage becomes a thing at some point during the 2016 election. If septuagenarian Fox News/CNN viewers in nursing homes haven't heard of "late night pony parties" already, boy are in they in for a treat. Imagine a Brian Boyko with no media training being hauled before Megyn Kelly, being asked the hard hitting questions...

edit: bonus if it's Shep Smith

quote:

Last week, California became the second state to back a constitutional convention to limit money in politics, reports SFGate. Its state Senate approved the measure 23-11 on a party-line vote, and the Assembly had passed it in January. The proposed convention would "limit corporate personhood for purposes of campaign finance and political speech," and "would further declare that money does not constitute speech and may be legislatively limited."

[...]

Meanwhile, conservative activists have long been pursuing a constitutional convention of their own — one to propose a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Twenty-two state legislatures are actively signed on, and 12 others signed on but later rescinded. Interestingly, those numbers combined are 34 — the magic number necessary to trigger a convention. And there's some controversy over whether states can rescind their applications in the first place, according to MLive's Jonathan Oosting. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) has asked Congress to evaluate whether a convention has in fact been triggered.

Though the new California resolution calls just for a "limited" constitutional convention, it's not clear that, if one does come about, it would be restricted to any one particular topic. Law professor Michael Stokes Paulsen argues that a convention would have the power to propose whatever amendments it wants, so some activists have feared that a "runaway convention" could approve extreme proposals. But any proposed amendment would still need to be approved by 38 states before going into effect.

Bel Shazar posted:

In this political climate the convention would be more likely to come back with some type of regional partition plan and the whole drat country would fall apart.

Mister Fister posted:

So in other words, you want an echo chamber here.

Mister Fister posted:

I didn't say this thread solely was what made me depressed, it's just a general observation about liberals and it's yet another example.