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

[Fugus]

I think the point hes making is that Americans insist on voting for a person instead of voting for their policies.

The republicans dont vote on policies either though, they’re just supporting their team. Still gives them a more reliable voter base though, and that’s a problem.

Understood and I agree, got family who calls Democrats devil worshipers to justify the evil stuff he has supported.

I apologize and am not trying to be mean anything but the moderation has came into this and said we need to drop the Clinton stuff which has derailed this thread since it was brought up on page 1. The same people have derailed multiple threads trying this same stuff.

[Drutt]

This. I kind of feel that since the bid to expand the Supreme Court failed last year, they're doing whatever they can right now in case Democrats get enough of a majority to attempt expansion after the midterms.

They don't seem to realise they've made a rod for their own backs, though. Pretty much every member of the Supreme Court is on record as saying Roe v Wade is settled law. They're revisiting it anyway.

This means any supposed "settled law" can be revisited. Anything they do can therefore be undone when the pendulum swings the other way (and it always does).

That's the danger of ignoring precedent: if you don't respect it in one area, it's back on the table in all areas, including the decision you just made.

[Glorious Leader]

This 100%. Reason why Democrats tend to lose is because of exactly that. The party has no balls to just fall in line and get things done like their Republican counterparts.

Right. They are big and dumb like the lenny. It has its advantages. It's also the most disgusting and naked form of partisanship you can shake a stick at. Not sure its a model worth replicating but for its efficacy unfortunately. Sean Connery said it best in the rock. Winners go home and fuck the prom queen.

[Trifle]

This means any supposed "settled law" can be revisited. Anything they do can therefore be undone when the pendulum swings the other way (and it always does).

That's the danger of ignoring precedent: if you don't respect it in one area, it's back on the table in all areas, including the decision you just made.

Thanks to lifetime appointments they don't really need to worry about this for the next 20-30 years, though. So they're probably fine with that.

[Fugus]

Thanks to lifetime appointments they don't really need to worry about this for the next 20-30 years, though. So they're probably fine with that.

Depends on if they push hard enough that the Democrats end with a large enough majority to expand the courts and so much public will that they aren’t allowed to throw away doing the right thing.

Which also why they are trying to make it easier to rig elections with money.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Or. Or. She supported legitimately terrible things. Like bombing even more children. The amount of hand wringing about Bernie bros smh. And you wonder why Democrats keep chasing off people who would otherwise vote for them.

And then Trump ended up droning children and putting them in cages and stealing them from their parents instead. Funny how that works eh? Also, I like how Hillary's support of a no fly zone over Syria turned into "She wants to bomb children"

But on topic, who's ready for even more campaign finance reforms that go the WRONG direction? Like Republicans just going full "You can now accept donations from foreign governments". You don't think this shit will happen, but in 2010 I never foresaw the 2022 supreme court bullshit either.

This country has been sliding backwards dramatically ever since the 2016 election. 514 judges across most branches of government issues, all conservative shills. You people think they're going to stop at overturning Roe Vs Wade, and making campaign donations a lot easier to receive? LOL, this is just barely the beginning of what they hope to do with the judicial branch packed full of Trump-tier crazies.

Edit: Been trying to think of things conservatives could potentially do with control of all these courts. While they couldn't touch a lot of legislation that I'm sure they'd love to, there are things like Brown vs Board of Education. While they couldn't strike down the Civil Rights act, it wouldn't be outside of the imagination to think they'd go for things like that.

[beanman12345]

Yeah, damn Bernie Bros being the cause of all of US's problems, or something.

[tehdang]

Good decision. Good majority opinion. In a rare case for arguments on standing, there was a funny bit included.

These arguments have an Alice in Wonderland air about them, with the Government arguing that appellees would not violate the statute by repaying Cruz, and the appellees arguing that they would

Government: But Mr. Cruz, what you did was legal under the law! You're good to go, except for this this minor government regulatory approach to the law, but the law isn't your problem!
Court: Are you high? The law empowers the FEC to do this, so it's of course a challenge to the law, and he has standing.

The opinion includes good Roberts trashing of the government's inability to provide evidence of corruption that the FEC wants to believe it's fighting.
Government: Ok, we don't have evidence of any corruption ever taking place from campaigns repaying loans the candidates took out to fund their campaign. But we do have some hypotheticals about access and influence!
Court: You don't have evidence, and hypotheticals aren't proof of corruption justifying limits on First Amendment rights. You can't just posit the existence of a disease sought to be cured to justify burdening speech.
Government: What about these media reports and anecdotes?
Court: How strange, constituents supporting candidates that hold their beliefs and interests, and then the candidates, once elected, are very responsive to their concerns. Much corruption. Huge surprise.
Government: We've got an academic article, a poll, and statements from Senators!
Court: Article admits authors can't differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate changes in voting patterns, and only exists as a first step in understanding the topic. The poll made no attempts to ask questions relevant to this law subsection, and used too-broad definitions. And a few straw floor statements from Senators don't constitute evidence.

Perhaps to make up for its evidentiary shortcomings, the Government falls back on what it calls a “common sense” analogy

Roberts is ruthless.

The analogy also proves too much. By the Government’s logic, post-election contributions to retire candidate loans are little different from gifts given directly to the candidate. But that logic is belied by how the Government treats the two categories of purported “gifts.”[...] 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. We find the latter answer more persuasive.

The government has suspect logic, boys.

[Kathranis]

Depends on if they push hard enough that the Democrats end with a large enough majority to expand the courts and so much public will that they aren’t allowed to throw away doing the right thing.

Which also why they are trying to make it easier to rig elections with money.

They're also aggressively blaming inflation, gas prices, and baby formula shortages on Biden while actively making the problems worse.

[Draco-Onis]

Good decision. Good majority opinion.

No one is surprised that you are pro corruption.

[Edge-]

No one is surprised that you are pro corruption.

"All speech is equal, but some speech is more equal than others."

[Gestopft]

Holy shit this is about money given AFTER the election. This makes it magnitudes worse than I thought, woooooowwwww

[Kaleredar]

Good decision. Good majority opinion. In a rare case for arguments on standing, there was a funny bit included. Government: But Mr. Cruz, what you did was legal under the law! You're good to go, except for this this minor government regulatory approach to the law, but the law isn't your problem!
Court: Are you high? The law empowers the FEC to do this, so it's of course a challenge to the law, and he has standing.

The opinion includes good Roberts trashing of the government's inability to provide evidence of corruption that the FEC wants to believe it's fighting.
Government: Ok, we don't have evidence of any corruption ever taking place from campaigns repaying loans the candidates took out to fund their campaign. But we do have some hypotheticals about access and influence!
Court: You don't have evidence, and hypotheticals aren't proof of corruption justifying limits on First Amendment rights. You can't just posit the existence of a disease sought to be cured to justify burdening speech.
Government: What about these media reports and anecdotes?
Court: How strange, constituents supporting candidates that hold their beliefs and interests, and then the candidates, once elected, are very responsive to their concerns. Much corruption. Huge surprise.
Government: We've got an academic article, a poll, and statements from Senators!
Court: Article admits authors can't differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate changes in voting patterns, and only exists as a first step in understanding the topic. The poll made no attempts to ask questions relevant to this law subsection, and used too-broad definitions. And a few straw floor statements from Senators don't constitute evidence.

Roberts is ruthless.

The government has suspect logic, boys.

can you enumerate on how this is a good decision, other than that this allows corporations to more directly pump money into your chosen politician's pockets?

[Glorious Leader]

No one is surprised that you are pro corruption.

His entire post reads like trolling

[tehdang]

can you enumerate on how this is a good decision, other than that this allows corporations to more directly pump money into your chosen politician's pockets?

The biting parts I pulled from the decision. Maybe you can start by telling me what you don't understand about the post you quoted?

[Kaleredar]

The biting parts I pulled from the decision. Maybe you can start by telling me what you don't understand about the post you quoted?

You didn't comment on any of them. You just linked a block of text. The closest you came to opining was that "the government has no corruption."


Which, uh... hot take, I guess. Guess there's no swamp that needs draining, after all?

[tehdang]

You didn't comment on any of them. You just linked a block of text. The closest you came to opining was that "the government has no corruption."

Which, uh... hot take, I guess. Guess there's no swamp that needs draining, after all?

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?"

[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.