Supreme Court screws the pooch yet again, unlimited campaign money funnelling to self

[Kaleredar]

The paraphrase is my comment on the decision. You're quoting it, but really dismissing the post as some "block of text," shows you have no real value in the interaction. Like, you can get your jollies mocking and trolling about pro-corruption, but are you really needing a response like "Sounds like Kalredar loves incumbents perma winning, the way he digs handicapping opponent fundraising?"

New candidates can and do defeat incumbents all the time. Clearly, it is not an impossibility.

Meanwhile, saying "well this way that candidates could use to basically siphon money to themselves that isn't currently allowed totally wont be used as yet another form of funneling money in politics!" is far less reassuring, seeing as money and corporate influence in politics is already a gross problem.


Hell, if anything, it allows candidates who already have money and influence to spend more to drown out up and coming opponents because they can get that money back that much more easily. So not even the pretend benefit you supposedly support to veil the fact that you like that it puts money from corporate donors more directly into conservative pockets even holds up.

[tehdang]

seeing as money and corporate influence in politics is already a gross problem.

It always felt like the responses to this case were just a generic response to money in politics.

Hell, if anything, it allows candidates who already have money and influence to spend more to drown out up and coming opponents because they can get that money back that much more easily. So not even the pretend benefit you supposedly support to veil the fact that you like that it puts money from corporate donors more directly into conservative pockets even holds up.

I'm more worried about the up and comers. The ones that really need the loan as supplement to get their name out there as a serious contender, while their opponent(s) already have high name recognition and existing relationships. I understand people are blasé about the impact to them.

I don't buy the "big and powerful need a better stream, and that is repaying personal loans with campaign cash!" It's a contradiction in terms. If they're already in possession of money and influence, then this doesn't matter. They already have the money and influence. Personal loans to campaigns isn't the big deal. And the government tried and failed to find examples of some strange personal-loan-corruption-practice, as opposed to the other hundred ways politicians curry favor and reward friends. Legally.

[Cthulhu 2020]

The paraphrase is my comment on the decision. You're quoting it, but really dismissing the post as some "block of text," shows you have no real value in the interaction. Like, you can get your jollies mocking and trolling about pro-corruption, but are you really needing a response like "Sounds like Kalredar loves incumbents perma winning, the way he digs handicapping opponent fundraising?"

It seems you can't answer the simple question of "Why do you think this is a good decision?" Would you like some help with that?

First off, think to yourself for a moment. Why do you think this is a good position? Why is it good that politicians get to have money funneled to them after an election by special interest groups?

And more importantly, is your stance on this decision going to change if it is utilized by Democrats to funnel hundreds of millions into progressive policies that completely outspend and overtake conservative policies?

- - - Updated - - -

It always felt like the responses to this case were just a generic response to money in politics.

I'm more worried about the up and comers. The ones that really need the loan as supplement to get their name out there as a serious contender, while their opponent(s) already have high name recognition and existing relationships. I understand people are blasé about the impact to them.

I don't buy the "big and powerful need a better stream, and that is repaying personal loans with campaign cash!" It's a contradiction in terms. If they're already in possession of money and influence, then this doesn't matter. They already have the money and influence. Personal loans to campaigns isn't the big deal. And the government tried and failed to find examples of some strange personal-loan-corruption-practice, as opposed to the other hundred ways politicians curry favor and reward friends. Legally.

"The little guy" isn't going to get money from big corporations. This decision doesn't affect the donations the smaller candidates get from smaller sources.

Also you're incredibly, horribly, fantastically WRONG that current candidates don't need money. It takes millions to hundreds of millions of dollars to run a campaign. These people won't be funding it.

Lastly, you claim these politicians have tons of money. Where do you think they get it from? Being a congressman doesn't pay much money in salary. These people mostly have money because our system allows corruption and for special interests to funnel money to these people. We need to be clamping down on campaign finance, not loosening up. Because as we know, if you don't spend millions upon millions, you're not getting it. I'd much rather have a situation where any candidate can state their case and gain exposure. This court decision isn't helping the little guy like you seem to think. It's doing the opposite. It's making small candidates even more irrelevant than ever.

[Kaleredar]

It always felt like the responses to this case were just a generic response to money in politics.

I'm more worried about the up and comers. The ones that really need the loan as supplement to get their name out there as a serious contender, while their opponent(s) already have high name recognition and existing relationships. I understand people are blasé about the impact to them.

I don't buy the "big and powerful need a better stream, and that is repaying personal loans with campaign cash!" It's a contradiction in terms. If they're already in possession of money and influence, then this doesn't matter. They already have the money and influence. Personal loans to campaigns isn't the big deal. And the government tried and failed to find examples of some strange personal-loan-corruption-practice, as opposed to the other hundred ways politicians curry favor and reward friends. Legally.

...so now you're operating under the assumption of "they're already rich and have money, why ever would they want more money?!"

And if you're saying that you're being either dangerously naive or aggravatingly insincere.

[Draco-Onis]

...so now you're operating under the assumption of "they're already rich and have money, why ever would they want more money?!"

And if you're saying that you're being either dangerously naive or aggravatingly insincere.

Nah he is right rich people don't feel greed that's why everyone stops once they become a millionaire and give all their money away /s

[tehdang]

First off, think to yourself for a moment. Why do you think this is a good position?

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.

...so now you're operating under the assumption of "they're already rich and have money, why ever would they want more money?!"

And if you're saying that you're being either dangerously naive or aggravatingly insincere.

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.

[Ripster42]

The paraphrase is my comment on the decision. You're quoting it, but really dismissing the post as some "block of text," shows you have no real value in the interaction. Like, you can get your jollies mocking and trolling about pro-corruption, but are you really needing a response like "Sounds like Kalredar loves incumbents perma winning, the way he digs handicapping opponent fundraising?"

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.

"The little guy" isn't going to get money from big corporations. This decision doesn't affect the donations the smaller candidates get from smaller sources.

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.

[Glorious Leader]

It always felt like the responses to this case were just a generic response to money in politics.

I'm more worried about the up and comers. The ones that really need the loan as supplement to get their name out there as a serious contender, while their opponent(s) already have high name recognition and existing relationships. I understand people are blasé about the impact to them.

I don't buy the "big and powerful need a better stream, and that is repaying personal loans with campaign cash!" It's a contradiction in terms. If they're already in possession of money and influence, then this doesn't matter. They already have the money and influence. Personal loans to campaigns isn't the big deal. And the government tried and failed to find examples of some strange personal-loan-corruption-practice, as opposed to the other hundred ways politicians curry favor and reward friends. Legally.

You mean your worried some establishment cuck will lose his position to a populist.

[tehdang]

You mean your worried some establishment cuck will lose his position to a populist.

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 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.

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."

[Ripster42]

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."

The correct thing to do is stop allowing rich candidates to loan money to their campaign and force them to just donate the money. Not allowing bribery to be legal.

[tehdang]

The correct thing to do is stop allowing rich candidates to loan money to their campaign and force them to just donate the money. Not allowing bribery to be legal.

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*

[Edge-]

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*

Wasn't Ted Cruz the incumbent?

[Ripster42]

Wasn't Ted Cruz the incumbent?

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.

[tehdang]

Wasn't Ted Cruz the incumbent?

He brought the suit with the decision, where his challenger raised $80 million dollars to Cruz's $40 million. The decision protects the political speech through campaign fundraising of more candidates than him, as I argued.

[Edge-]

He brought the suit with the decision, where his challenger raised $80 million dollars to Cruz's $40 million. The decision protects the political speech through campaign fundraising of more candidates than him, as I argued.

That's a really weird argument, but ok I guess. I'd imagine there would be general support to eliminate the corrupting influence of money in politics, but I guess not.

[tehdang]

That's a really weird argument, but ok I guess. I'd imagine there would be general support to eliminate the corrupting influence of money in politics, but I guess not.

If it didn't come at the costs I detailed. But good discussion.

[Gestopft]

Nah. Use what resources you have to get your name out there

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 - - -

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."

Yeah...or maybe our system simply has an utter inability to define 'corruption' aside from what is cartoonishly obvious and easily avoidable.