House Spending Bill Includes Campaign Finance Deregulation

[Wyrt]

Of course the Republicans are supporting further corruption and bribery in government. Of course.

And of course the Democrats will do fuck all to oppose it and then take advantage of it later.

[Mayhem]

Is everyone who disagrees with you a bot?

Not at all.

Bottom line here is that speech and money is free expression. A candidate can propose whatever they want. Other stakeholders are free to support or oppose the campaign.

Ah, got it. What a strange form of democracy you guys have.

[Paranoid Android]

A little off topic but:

Republicans vote to block resolutions on Trump's tax returns.

Protect and shelter the man-child. Keep enabling the Orange Turd and then whine when he messes up.

[Grapemask]

Is everyone who disagrees with you a bot?

Bottom line here is that speech and money is free expression. A candidate can propose whatever they want. Other stakeholders are free to support or oppose the campaign.

The notion that "money is speech" is one of the most laughable things put out by conservatives (especially of the Justice variety). That's like a gold medal in mental gymnastics.

[Tinykong]

Just what we need, more money in politics!

[Felya]

Is everyone who disagrees with you a bot?

Bottom line here is that speech and money is free expression. A candidate can propose whatever they want. Other stakeholders are free to support or oppose the campaign.

Money is not speech. You don't gain more freedom of speech, with more money you have. Equating money with speech is plutocracy...

[Kujako]

Money is not speech. You don't gain more freedom of speech, with more money you have. Equating money with speech is plutocracy...

Spending money is free expression, have a hard time arguing that it's not.

[Felya]

Spending money is free expression, have a hard time arguing that it's not.

Yeah, spending money for something free is bizarre. Maybe it's shipping and handling of speech?

[Z-Man]

Corporations also would be able to ask their employees to donate to unlimited numbers of trade associations’ political-action groups instead of limiting employee solicitations to one group per year.

Oh, yay. I've had my head stuck in that vice before from companies trying to pad their contribution numbers. Companies with their own PACs will be able to grind their employees into the ground.

One company turned over the pay records to the contribution committee, who then sifted through our pay stubs to single out those who they felt weren't contributing enough. If you were on this list, you got a visit from your supervisor with a new contribution form. If you threw it away, they'd fish it out of the garbage and bring it back to you, and then stand over you while you filled it out. Our shop was even told to sign blank withdrawal forms, and the committee would choose an appropriate dollar amount to take out of our account based on your pay level. And this was for "charity", I can only imagine the lengths a for-profit PAC will go to.

[Kujako]

Yeah, spending money for something free is bizarre. Maybe it's shipping and handling of speech?

Ah, I see the problem. You're confusing "Free as in speech" with "free as in beer".

[cubby]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/nestled...ion-1504965600



Welp, the House seems pretty intent on keeping the swamp as full as possible.

We need campaign finance reform like whoa, and this is the exact opposite of what needs to happen. This proposed deregulation sure seems pretty damn swampy.

After Citizens United campaign finance regulation pretty much lost all steam. Barring a constitutional amendment, it will continue to fall down until anyone, anywhere, can contribute whatever they want to whomever they choose, regardless of status.

The only barrier I see holding for a long while is the foreign nationals - but even that will be tested during Trump's trial.

[Puremallace]

Can anyone honestly explain how we are not currently living in a Oligarchy again? Literally the entire point of tax payers is to finance the debt to make these bastards more rich.

[Breccia]

Can anyone honestly explain how we are not currently living in a Oligarchy again? Literally the entire point of tax payers is to finance the debt to make these bastards more rich.

Are you talking about the campaign finance reform, or the spending bill?

A) There are rules about campaign finances. You're not supposed to keep the money, or spend it on yourself. Trump was the big exception of course.

B) Defendable. It's true, a lot of spending goes to costs such as Medicaid that, in theory, people shouldn't have to rely on government care because they should be paid enough to have their own money. That's a big, ugly debate and there's no right or wrong answer.

The tax plan, which does not exist yet, is a different story. We'll get to that eventually, but the spending bill isn't that.

[PosPosPos]

Ah, I see the problem. You're confusing "Free as in speech" with "free as in beer".

Smacking you really hard on the head is also free expression, but according to your weird devil's advocate logic it seems that there isn't a line drawn at all forms of expression.

- - - Updated - - -

That's a big, ugly debate and there's no right or wrong answer.

True and untrue respectively. There is objectively a most correct answer(and subsequently a most wrong answer). Any solution that results in the least people falling through the cracks in a practical scenario is the most correct answer. That's all there is.

The actual explanation why there's a big ugly debate on this issue is there's a party that wants to choose the most correct answer(minimize suffering), and there's another that wants to choose the most wrong answer(maximize suffering), but no side has enough of a majority to tip the scales.

[lockedout]

But this sounds like Trump is desperate to bolster his sagging numbers

According to a Rasmussen Reports poll released on September 10, Trump currently has a 46% approval rating.

[Elegiac]

Bottom line here is that speech and money is free expression.

The term you're looking for is 'legalised corruption'.

- - - Updated - - -

According to a Rasmussen Reports poll released on September 10, Trump currently has a 46% approval rating.

Which, once Rasmussen's well known sampling problems are accounted for, doesn't show any remarkable improvement in the fact everyone but his base dislikes him.

[Kujako]

Smacking you really hard on the head is also free expression, but according to your weird devil's advocate logic it seems that there isn't a line drawn at all forms of expression.

Yes... your freedoms end where mine begin. Not really a hard concept. Telling people how they can and can not spend their money would be the opposite of that. I dislike Citizens United, but I have a hard time finding fault with that part of the ruling. The corporations are people part is just silly and violates the 13th amendment.

[Breccia]

According to a Rasmussen Reports poll released on September 10, Trump currently has a 46% approval rating.

Aaaaaaaaand it's dropped. 44%. And Rasmussen continues to give Trump an edge nobody else does.

Trump's numbers are low by pretty much every metric available. He was lower than every president save two in recorded history, and is below Clinton again. He's a whopping 2-3% over Ford.