|
|
Forum Overview
::
Tansin A. Darcos's Alter Ego
|
|
|
by Mischief Maker 04/02/2017, 5:56am PDT |
|
|
|
|
|
The point of campaign finance laws is that all citizens have equal say in how our democracy is operated, regardless of their personal fortunes.
Politician H is deciding on a bill and being lobbied in two directions by Citizen A and Citizen B. Politician H knows Citizen A gave $10 to her campaign while Citizen B gave the full $5200. Whose side is Politician H more likely to take?
Now lets enter the world of Citizen's United. Citizen C wants in on this debate and has a million dollars to give. If Citizen C says to Politician H, "I will give $1 million to your campaign if you vote my way on the bill," that's illegal bribery because no one can reasonably expect Citizen A or B to be able to compete with that kind of money, and only people being intentionally naive would think it wouldn't have a corrupting influence on Politician H.
However, if Citizen C gives $5200 to Politician H, then pledges to donate the remaining $994,800 to the "Citizens for Electing Politician H" SuperPAC if Politician H votes their way, that's hunky dory! No way it would have identical corrupting influence to giving the money to Politician H's campaign directly. Why? Because Politician H's political campaign and the "Citizens for Electing Politician H" SuperPAC can't coordinate!
How does this firewall for democracy function? Well if Politician H calls up the SuperPAC and says, "I'm going to Pittsburgh to talk about manufacturing jobs, run some TV ads that say good things about me and manufacturing in that market," that's awful evil corrupting coordination that cannot be allowed! But if Politician H tweets "I'm going to Pittsburgh to talk about manufacturing jobs" and the SuperPAC, many of whose employees had a close working relationship with Politician H in the past, just happens to run some TV ads that say good things about Politician H and manufacturing in that market, no problem!
The fact pattern is the least important part of a court ruling. Ask any lawyer who clerked for the SCOTUS and they'll tell you the court makes its decision first, then turns to the fact pattern to craft the excuse why. This is why I said it was imperative to hold your nose and vote Hillary in 2016 and why I say now that Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp are traitors to the left in the worst way possible.
Now if you want me to untangle the rats nest of precedent surrounding corporate personhood and other legal minutia on this video game forum, that sounds about as appealing as explaining to a creationist why the bacterial flagella is not "irreducably complex" so I'm not gonna do it for free. My fee for that kind of legal memo is $250/hr. Surely pocket change like that is as easily accessible for you as it is for Citizen C! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
question for TDARCOS by Mysterio 03/23/2017, 7:44pm PDT
About one's personal beliefs by Commander Tansin A. Darcos 03/24/2017, 9:49am PDT
Re: About one's personal beliefs by John Wayne 03/24/2017, 2:15pm PDT
A pretty good fake Dr Tacos, but too blatant. C- NT by The Happiness Engine 03/24/2017, 3:54pm PDT
Now I really do want Paul's take! by Conterfeit TARDCOS Watch 03/25/2017, 3:39pm PDT
Did you actually READ the article I linked? by Mischief Maker 03/26/2017, 11:43pm PDT
I read into it more as exemplarary of her beliefs by BUT you're the smart guy! 03/28/2017, 12:04am PDT
It IS. Just slowly. by Mischief Maker 03/28/2017, 5:02am PDT
At least we have a common enemy in DC NT by Moralhighground Maker 03/28/2017, 10:02pm PDT
Libertarianism is silly but not scary. And a favorite scarecrow of the left by blackwater 03/30/2017, 10:12pm PDT
Maybe it's fringe among Republican VOTERS, but it's the philosophy of the Kochs. by Mischief Maker 03/31/2017, 6:36am PDT
Re: Maybe it's fringe among Republican VOTERS, but it's the philosophy of the Co by Vested Id 03/31/2017, 2:13pm PDT
That's not what Citizens United was about by Commander Tansin A. Darcos 03/31/2017, 3:17pm PDT
There is nothing more annoying than being smug while playing dumb. by Mischief Maker 04/02/2017, 5:56am PDT
Whoops, the indivudual limit is still $2700, not $5200. My mistake. NT by Mischief Maker 04/02/2017, 6:03am PDT
Again, this has nothing to do with the Citizens United case by Commander Tansin A. Darcos 04/02/2017, 2:52pm PDT
Once again: The fact pattern is the least important part of a court decision. NT by MM 04/02/2017, 4:03pm PDT
You got schooled by TDARCOS. by blackwater 04/03/2017, 10:11am PDT
I guess judges SHOULD expand the scope to issues not brought up by petitioners. by Mischief Maker 04/04/2017, 6:46pm PDT
That wasn't Paul. NT by Mysterio 04/04/2017, 8:36pm PDT
Don't be butthurt over Citizens United. It was the right decision. by blackwater 04/03/2017, 9:56am PDT
You mean multi billionaires by brilliant! 04/03/2017, 7:16pm PDT
|
|
|
|
|