“Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
Words to live by.
The heart of it is, "What does the law say?" and later "Is the burden on First Amendment rights absolutely critical to combating corruption?" That's the question to the case. I don't think this path is ripe for corruption, and the government got all of jack and shit to show that it's the case.
I think the dangerous naivete exhibited here is supposing personal loans a candidate makes to his campaign is something billionaires just accidentally missed in existing law. Or maybe $2900 limit is way too high if the wrong person makes it? This could just be ignorance of existing FEC law.
"I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
Let me know when the candidates are barred from charging interest on the loans, and I'll stop thinking this is one of the worst decisions since citizens united. The only things this does is allow rich people to dominate politics even more and allow bribery.
It's only going to affect candidates that win. Losing candidates generally don't keep getting donations. It's almost explicitly about legalizing bribery of sitting politicians.
You really think "establishment cucks" (your words) fear losing the avenue of personal loans, an avenue no government lawyer or amici brief could find evidence of happening, versus a populist challenger? This is a very upside down world. Establishment figures are known for having large campaign war chests.
Let me know when you have evidence that the loan amount or the interest charged is being used for corrupt quid pro quo. Loaning money to a campaign,
You'll be surprised to learn one argument against repayment-of-loans-as-gifts-thus-bribery is the logic it entails. And it's explained in the decision! What's the difference between tolerating $2900 per individual contribution limit, and allowing 86 such gifts before the FEC's $250,000 limit, and the other laws restricting actual gifts to below $250. "Either the Government is openly tolerating a significant number of “gifts” far more generous than what it would normally think fit to allow, or post-election contributions that go toward retiring campaign debt are in no real sense “gifts” to a candidate."
"I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
Nah. Use what resources you have to get your name out there and challenge incumbents with free media attention naturally ($$$ equivalent) free name recognition ($$$$$) and issue/policy association. You're constantly returning to requiring me to approve measures that hurt challengers to incumbency, in the name of "the rich are also harmed in this measure." Also, *No evidence of quid pro quo corruption required*
"I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
Yes.
This ruling also only benefits a union of rich people and incumbents. I really don't understand why he's admitting that no evidence of quid pro quo corruption is required to prevent people from loaning money to their campaign, seems like it really undercuts their point. But it's true, you don't need evidence of quid pro quo corruption to prevent everyone from loaning money to their own campaigns.
"I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
Because what we need in Congress is MORE rich people...
The average Joe or Jane deciding they want to run for Congress isn't going to be able to make massive personal loans to their campaign and they will also have little idea whether or not they will be able to recoup through donations. This ruling helps incumbents with existing donor networks FAR more than "the up and comers..." unless the up and comers are already very rich.
- - - Updated - - -
Yeah...or maybe our system simply has an utter inability to define 'corruption' aside from what is cartoonishly obvious and easily avoidable.
Last edited by Gestopft; 2022-05-26 at 06:08 PM.
"We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
-Louis Brandeis