|
Hobby Lobby isn't relying on a personal belief angle, but the legal arguments wouldn't change much if they were actually opposed to contraception. The insurance coverage at issue is for things the FDA has admitted can cause "abortion" (pre-implantation I think) in certain circumstances.
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 21:17 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Actually it would change those arguments' effectiveness, because the Court (and most Americans) aren't going to buy the argument that mandating straight-up contraception coverage is actually a substantial burden on religion. But since the men on the Court seem good with that argument when it comes to abortion, the tactic is to claim whatever you hate causes abortion according to your beliefs and count on the court's reluctance to pass judgment on the validity of religious belief. The substantial burden analysis does not turn on the specifics of what's being mandated. It'll be about Hobby Lobby having to pay for health insurance (if it has a claim under RFRA), and the Greens indirectly paying for that as owners of the company. http://www.volokh.com/2013/12/04/3a...gious-practice/ The contraception-specific piece is in strict scrutiny which is more complicated. rkajdi posted:They've gotten what they need, so there's no point in hiding it anymore. What are black/poor people going to do, vote them out of office with the franchise that they lost? So do you actually have evidence states have been doing poo poo to try to do this? Voter id has minimal impact on turnout. Evil Fluffy posted:The thing is that the SCOTUS really doesn't have the authority to say they're out of date, and the argument of it being out of date was such a blatant lie that Obama should've publicly called them on it. Counterpoint: City of Boerne v. Flores. rkajdi posted:Yup, but everything I see tells me the VRA is going to die after it hits its next sundown date (It has one of those, right? that's the reason for reauthorization), so all this stuff will happen post-haste. I doubt it will hurt me personally because I'm male and white (and can pass for straight and Christian) but it will pretty much be the end of the country as anything other than a hollow apartheid state. The sundown date is only for pre-clearance.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
joeburz posted:Higher impact on election results than voter fraud "prevented" by these measures. Well obviously. But pre-clearance wouldn't help (Crawford v. Marion County Election Board). VitalSigns posted:You're probably right about strict scrutiny, but either way I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect that the SCOTUS is a lot more likely to rule for Hobby Lobby if this is about abortion instead of birth control, which is why the right is spinning it that way. Roberts was really, really interested in pinning down the government at oral arguments over whether their logic would permit congress to require actual abortion coverage if they wanted, so he could move into "ah but here they believe these things cause abortions so it's the same thing!" Rereading the transcript it looks like it was just Kennedy asking about it once unless I missed something. But who knows what the logic will be until the decision comes down. made of bees posted:By 'on the federal level', do you mean for offices in the federal government, or elections that the whole country takes part in, which is pretty much just the presidential election? Is it likely that anyone would argue that technically, even the presidential elections happen at the state level, since you're voting for electors who then vote for the president? Poll taxes violate EPC at every level.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Sorry to burst in on the endless D&D pessimism circlejerk but how about some actual reality? Yes but a state legislator said a thing  rkajdi posted:Exactly. We're this drat close to effectively destroying the right to most kinds of birth control (the most effective but temporary kinds, of course) for poor and middle-class women. Why do I give a poo poo about poll numbers when they have nothing to do with the decisions of 9 old lawyers deciding our rights? I mean, it's great that people want these things to be okay (but note in that survey we're still puritanical sex shamers, and have gotten worse in that category) but that doesnt translate into either legislative or actual rights. Come the gently caress on. Condoms are a dollar, BC pills are $30-$50 per month, and an IUD is $500-$1000 for a decade. And where have we gotten more puritanical in the chart?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:Right, they're all pretty much unfordable for poor people and in some cases a real stretch for even the middle class. Thanks for deigning to notice. The median household income is $50k and they probably have health insurance that covers it! Medicaid definitely covers it and there's pilot programs to expand family planning services outside the Medicaid eligibility range. rkajdi posted:Again, we're less cool with people having sex outside their marriage. Your spouse doesn't get ownership of your body, sorry. No, we're less cool with adultery, which I'm quite confident in saying is generally not morally acceptable. No, you're saying "We're this drat close to effectively destroying the right to most kinds of birth control (the most effective but temporary kinds, of course) for poor and middle-class women." I'm not saying it's okay, I'm saying it's usually affordable.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 19:05
|
|
), and all those other costs are at the point of making things incredibly ownerous for lower income women. Unless you think a $360-600 tax a year on women for the right to control their bodies is okay.
|
rkajdi posted:Yeah, the issue is that we're in the process of killing that insurance's coverage of it (via the Hobby Lobby case). Plus, $50K is worth maybe what $35K after taxes and such? So you're telling a woman to spend 1-1.5% of her take home (and LOL if you think a single woman's take home is 50K on average) as a bodily autonomy tax. Note that even celebate women have to pay this, because rape happens and if you think the same forces aren't going to try their best to stop any sort of emergency contraception or abortion, I think you're mental. The worst-case scenario for Hobby Lobby is that it helps a few already-lovely companies. Not much change at all. And Plan B is $50 at Target. quote:Saying that a person should be able to control the sexuality of their partner is deeply puritanical and flawed. And again, it's historically been a tool used to oppress and contain women's sexuality, so again thanks for that. I don't understand. Are you saying that adultery isn't a justifiable reason for leaving someone? quote:Acting like all this isn't just a quick backslide towards a pre-sexual revolution hellhole is just putting your head in the sand. Your argument for this is that: 1) a law not enacted until 2010 might be rolled back a tiny bit and 2) moral agreement with "adultery" went from 7% to 6%. rkajdi posted:I fully admit I'm a pessimist on this, but until one of those religious freedom laws gets knocked down by SCOTUS I'm not seeing it as a win. A 5-4 there basically destroys all economic civil rights, and we have 4 conservative bigots and 1 libertarian on the court. I don't like those odds at all. Plus, I'll also say that I've personally seen more homophobic behavior coming my way in the last few years (I'm bi but not very out about it) so that might color it a bit. I don't understand what you think the case would even be here. Mississippi didn't have any antidiscimination laws to destroy.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:Median income is totally irrelevant Here is the list of states that have them, including many southern states http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_SMFPE.pdf rkajdi posted:Again, $50 is a lot of money if you're poor. Your privilege is showing. For an event that has a 1 in 4 chance of happening over your entire life? Again, it was the status quo before 2010 and it'll be zero issue for a state that enacts single-payer. quote:Hahaha that the law is a tiny bit. It effectively allows you to deprive LGBT people of food and shelter. I short, some of the most basic rights. My main worry is that religious freedom via the Hobby Lobby case will allow a crack in the door to destroy basic rights for people. If you lack the ability to get a job, food, shelter, and have economic freedom, all the Bill of Rights wankery that you put forward is without value. You can already deprive LGBT people of food and shelter in most states. Hobby Lobby has zero relevance to states that want to enact anti-discrimination laws or a Congress that isn't completely incompetent at legislating. quote:I understand. My worry is that the law survives court challenge (we have 4 regressives and a libertarian, so it's very possible) and thus religion is used to destroy any chance of gays getting real equal rights (i.e. an ENDA style law to gently caress over whoever denies us economic equality) No, I'm asking what course of events do you think would lead to the law being challenged in the first place? rkajdi posted:What happens when more and more employers drop this stuff and then shift the burden to poor women? Seriously, acting like there are no higher order effects of soemthing like this is willful ignorance. Allowing businesses to gain religious freedoms like this would also probably spell the end of labor unions, too. ALEC had some stuff being passed around about that, IIRC. It's another way for the powerful to gently caress the powerless, and saying "I'm not poor, so it doesn't affect me" is so FYGM it's unbelievable. Because acting like this is no big deal when it effectively destroys any kind of decent birth control for a segment of people is exactly that. The only companies that would drop it didn't cover it in the first place and almost all of them aren't going to be able to sustain a religious freedom objection. Hobby Lobby is a very unique situation. I have no idea what you're going on about labor unions.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Keep downplaying it rear end in a top hat. Obviously the burden should be thrown on the woman. No it shouldn't?  quote:A bad SCOTUS decision could easily place religious liberty at a place that allows it to trump basic rights. Not unless you get a court inclined to revisit Employment Division v. Smith. quote:A group currently protected by the CRA is fired/refused service under religious freedom from this law. So say single women with kids or Jews. They sue, and then end up losing up top 5-4 because we have 4 regressives and a libertarian, none of which believe we should be doing the thing the state is best at, loving over uncooperative people. I'd say that would be impossible ten years ago, but we have a court that just gutted the VRA, so there's no reason to assume they wouldn't do the same to the CRA. Without that, every small community in the US turn in a rural hellhole for minorities in quick fashion. I can't find a single case where someone tried to use RFRA against the CRA and I seriously doubt it would be sustained given that the CRA has been repeatedly upheld even before Smith. It's hypothetical upon hypothetical. Munkeymon posted:I'll grant you that's less bad than I thought, but it's still a hell of a long way from where it should be. Yes.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Ditocoaf posted:Also holy loving christ, no matter how many times I think "holy loving christ, these shootings are absurdly frequent lately," the rate just keeps accelerating. Nope.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Is there a legal precedence where people are legally allowed to even protect other people and enforce laws? Depends on the state. It is in a lot of places.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
President Bush doesn't want to privatize Social Security via Executive Order guys, it's just the Democrat's fault for blocking it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Uh so why aren't we rounding up the people who pointed guns at federal officers enforcing a court order and charging them with that, so they can't just go murder random people? Because most of them didn't point guns at anyone?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Exactly nobody at OWS pointed guns at anyone and more of them were rounded up. I agree that cops treat right-wingers with kid gloves, but arresting every random idiot who protested at the ranch still would've been dumb.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:And there is no funding for a wider study of guns and violence so welp It's too bad no rich people support gun control.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:You might have more of a point if pushing policy rather than funding studies wasn't a constant complaint from social scientists whenever Bloomberg or someone decides to throw cash into the political arena over guns. AreWeDrunkYet posted:Yup, this whole gun violence thing is in no way a public health issue and should be addressed entirely by private interests. Why is the government spending money on studying poo poo like cancer and traffic accidents, anyway? If there was a significant chance that there are future Studies that would say anything favorable to Bloomberg's position I would think he would fund them instead of his current noble goal of “making it illegal to put more than seven bullets in a ten round magazine.”
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Wow, you are right, lovely logic IS fun! I don't care if the CDC ban is repealed and the NRA is terrible so
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Hey sedanchair/kiwi ghost chips, I'm curious just what are your solutions to these shootings? Other than the USA is a completely hosed up nation and needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. Universal health care, universal basic income, and repealing the CSA.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:But then you'll go out and vote for a batshit crazy republican who wouldn't vote for any of those things with a gun to his head to protect your unlimited gun rights. Nope.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Only the Libertarian sociopaths among us decry human emotion and the value of life in society. Who do you think "decries" emotion? I just don't think emotions should be used to pass gun laws just like "eew gays" emotions shouldn't be used to pass marriage bans.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
Crain posted:No I'm not. My point is there needs to be a term to differentiate the type of shooting we have been watching increase in frequency for the last 40 years. Where is the evidence that these kinds of shootings are actually increasing?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Crain posted:This link shows a break down of shootings with 8+ fatalities that shows a trend toward frequency increasing. But it does not take into account wounded or any shootings with less than 8 deaths and it's from January. This article cites to “a recent CNN report” so I have no idea where they're getting their data set from. quote:Looking at the list of School Shootings, part of what I'm talking about with "mass" shootings and the more common variety, on wikipedia (which is amazingly well kept with stats and even has today's event listed already)for the last 5 years we get: And that data has serious problems. If you look at the shootings for recent years most of them had no fatalities or were suicides, in stark contrast to older data. It's possible that there's been an increase in this class of shootings but what's more likely is publication bias; nonfatal shootings and suicides from the pre-Internet age are not generally going to make it to Wikipedia.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Anybody know how the actual mechanics of a constitutional convention would work? I'm not having any luck googling around. The wall of text that is Article V is all we know really. It's never been done before.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Get the gently caress out of my thread. Chipotle is awesome Yeah the economics of voting are looking great now.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
Chipotle owns
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
It doesn't change the number of them you can arrest (a significant minority).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
Create Majority and Minority Troll of the Senate positions and give them to Reid and Cruz, tia.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
That's because he was 100% correct in this case. S.J. Res 19 is awful and the “money =/= speech” talking point doesn't change that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Here is the text of SJ Res 19 Because “funds spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates” is a euphemism for political speech. Let's say Mitt Romney is leading in the polls and I want to protest his probable election. Now nobody could object if I went onto the lawn and told anybody passing by how awful he is. But what if I want to do something more flashy? I go buy a flag, spray Romney's face on it, and burn it on the lawn. Oops! Since I spend funds “in opposition to such candidates“, my speech now exists at the whim of Congress. That's obviously an inflammatory example (heh), but I'm using it intentionally. It's easy to get caught up in inequality rhetoric and forget just how much of a blank check we're giving to Congress here.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:It isn't an inflammatory example, it is a straw man. All this does is reverse citizens united and allow them to pass legislation again (which we all know will be weak), not put the very existence of political speech at their "whim" and giving them a "blank check" any more than it was at their whim and they had a blank check prior to 2010. If they wanted to pass an amendment that would've done that they could've done so, but it would've been ugly as hell because BCRA 203 was ugly as hell and deserved to go down. The split between media corporations and other corporations alone is enough to prove what a bad law it was. radical meme posted:Seriously, why can't we just have a proposed Amendment that says money is not speech? Is that stupid? Doesn't that correct the problem? Because “money is not speech” is a dumb talking point that people almost always spend money to get a message across. It's like saying rights to fair trials aren't infringed if you just make it illegal to pay for a defense lawyer.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:what, you think that since they didn't drop the full text of a campaign finance reform bill in the constitution that they have some nefarious plan instead? This amendment is a necessary precondition to passing campaign finance reform. Section 4 is what gives them the authority to do so, which they lack post Citizens United. They have to pass this so they can pass a reform bill without it being struck down. Yes I do. Here are some of Congress's previous forays into campaign finance reform: Preventing (noncorporate) organized groups from calling for the impeachment of President Nixon without going through extensive registration systems: United States v. National Committee for Impeachment Having a per-candidate spending limit, and requiring any group wishing to speak about a candidate to get their approval: American Civil Liberties Union, Inc. v. Jennings Preventing non-federal candidates from raising soft money to attack federal candidates, which plugged a “loophole” in the soft money to parties law, which plugged a “loophole” in the aggregate contribution limit, which plugged a “loophole” in the individual contribution limit, which plugged a “loophole” in the bribery laws: McConnell v. Federal Election Commission Preventing children from contributing to political candidates at all (!!!): “ Trying to eliminate negative advertising through the “I approve this message” provision: “ Preventing corporations and labor unions from mentioning the name of a candidate, regardless of its possible interpretations: Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. Oh, and the primary ugliness of §203 that I've never seen answered is the exemption for “a communication appearing in a news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station.” Now what does this mean? Click this before you answer. I simply do not trust Congress to act in the public interest rather than their own. If you'd like I can quote mine the Congressional Record from during BCRA's debate to show just what they think of people speaking their minds about incumbents.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:So your solution to corruption is to allow unlimited corruption rather than push to correct instances of corruption? Congress already has the power to prevent actual corruption in elections. Buckley v. Valeo is in no danger of being overruled.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Buckley v Valeo was striking down finance restrictions in favor of the "money = speech" crap. It is exactly the poo poo that needs to go to stop the purchasing of elections. That it and citizens united are in no danger of being overturned is exactly the problem. And it also upheld contribution limits in order to stop quid pro quo corruption. The idea of “purchasing elections” presupposes that voters can't think for themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Quid pro quo corruption is not the end all be all of it. In fact the problem is that defining the focus so narrowly means that recent rulings have let egregious, naked corruption slide by because "access isn't quid pro quo" and poo poo like Vance MacAllister's votes for cash wasn't explicitly spelled out, or how the giving 750k to Clarence Thomas' wife wasn't buying his vote because the money wasn't given to him, or how the coal companies are running things in West Virginia. Access is not corruption. If I'm a Congressman's campaign manager and they're undecided on a bill, who's opinion carries more weight: mine or a random voter's? I understand what you're saying but “elites” is a nebulous concept. Do you think §203 covered elites? All of them or some of them? Did it cover anyone else? What substantive laws would you like to see passed? All 19 does is give a blank check to Congress. McDowell posted:While donations to individual candidates remain capped, there is now nothing stopping an individual from managing groups of candidates all over the country through donations. Yes they can give small amounts to as many candidates as they like.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:The hell it isn't. This is the same crap the SCOTUS just put out, that "ok sure giving 10k means they listen to you and not their voters but that doesn't mean you bought the vote because you just shut out other opinions and implied consequences for not going along rather than stating it outright" A $200 Obama donor tells him he's disappointed in the lack of public option and won't donate in 2012. Truly terrible. And you can't donate 10k to a campaign. quote:are you expecting me to admit you are right and say the random voters here? Are you really that foolish? No I obviously have more influence, and I've donated my time to the campaign. quote:it covered some but not enough, and I'd like to see it go further Are the ACLU and the AFL-CIO both elites? They were plaintiffs in McConnell v. FEC. Is Rupert Murdoch an elite? Do you want to restrict the press, and if not, who is the press? quote:no it doesn't. They didn't have a blank check before 2010, this won't do anything more but return it to then. You may as well claim the 13th amendment is a blank check to invalidate property rights as to claim this is a blank check to invalidate free speech. No, it would overturn decades of precedent starting with Buckley. Congress never had the power 19 would give. quote:you know that's a crock of poo poo, someone posted a story of Steve stockman money laundering for his campaign earlier this week. We have years if tracing the dark money networks and "totally not coordinating superPACs" showing how much they dodge the limits you are claiming are enough. None of those things are affected by aggregate limits.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:yes you can. The individual limit isn't the only way and you know it, which is the problem. Direct PAC donations to a campaign are set by the state but can go to at least 43,000. Then you can do bundler fundraising dinners and charge north of 75,000. Then you can donate a million to a candidate backing PAC. And you can do millions in "independent expenditure" with the fig leaf of a non coordinating PAC. http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml You're talking about limits for state races that individual states get to set. They wouldn't need 19 to lower them. quote:Which upheld campaign finance reform, which you are arguing against. Exactly. They both filed amicus briefs supporting Citizens United. Are they elites? quote:you are trying to frame this as "well how do we structure the minutia of the law" and "well if you don't have a good answer we should do nothing". Which is horse poo poo. The solution to not having a perfect response in not to allow naked purchasing of the political system. The solution is to come up with the best you can and adjust it over time to best balance individual rights and integrity of the process. Which 203 did not do. If CU had lost they could've restructured as a "news organization" and produced Hillary: The Report. Why should that change their free speech protections? quote:given that your only examples of "they can't so this" are very recent, yeah it's pretty clear it was something they previously had. Buckley v Valeo was the start of the poo poo that gutted the integrity of our political process and out us at odds with the rest of the democratic world. It needs to be flushed away. I gave you cases that predate Buckley. They're from the original FECA passed in 1971 I think. That was when Congress first started really messing with the electoral process. Fried Chicken posted:Kiwi Ghost Chips please tell me more about how Scott Walker should be able to do this freely because we need more money buying campaigns because it totally doesn't buy off the political process I don't know enough about that to say anything.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:actually in my examples of how to beat the 10k limit I was talking federal campaigns. Specifically Koch contributions to the Romney campaign. From what I could find the 75k fundraiser was into their own pockets that went to political nonprofits, not the Romney campaign. quote:And they do need 19 to regulate at the state level, that was the result of Western Trade Partnership Inc v Montana. Hence why section 2 of sj 19 allows the states the power. They can regulate the same way Congress can. quote:my aren't you fixated on "but aren't they elites". Sorry, but I don't play the dog whistle game. That they raise objections to part of the law doesn't mean the solution is the wholesale buying of the political process ??? I'm pointing out that 203 was both significantly over- and under-inclusive with regard to "elites", however you define them. That's because Congress doesn't actually care about elite access, they care about getting reelected. quote:"this law isn't perfect therefore we should have no laws" is a false dichotomy. It makes the law pointless and quite right to be struck down. quote:campaign finance restrictions got kicked off at least in the 1890s. You have a reversal of the ability to regulate that pops up in the 1979s, coincidentally at the time of SCOTUS justice Lewis Powell and his memo to the rich and business interests about how to capture the political process of this country, but apparently reversing nearly 100 years of explicit jurisprudence is reaffirming the way things have always been rather than the new hotness. You had the Tillman Act of 1907 which remains law. The next relatively major law was Taft–Hartley in 1947 which the courts narrowed into essentially nothing so they could avoid the constitutional question. http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2730&context=mulr Buckley didn't overrule anything. evilweasel posted:I find that, generally speaking, when you try to counter an assertion about the way the world works by saying that it would be wrong for it to work that way you're not in a good spot, reality-wise. Arguments that people must be bad people for suggesting that you can buy elections (and you absolutely 100% can, it's just that it's not nearly as effective in high-attention races) basically mean you're not willing to deal with reality. Of course political speech can influence people. What I'm saying is that I trust voters to be able to make their own decisions more than I trust Congress to work for the voters' interest rather than their own. quote:Money isn't corruption because corruption is a thing that is different from a briefcase full of $100 bills. Therefore, giving people money in exchange for things must not be. You're trying to dodge the issue through weaseling around it. Access isn't a “thing” like a vote or other official decision is. People who help out with a politician's campaign — either with time or money — are going to have more influence. But the solution is worse than the problem. Joementum posted:For those discussing campaign finance reform, what do you think about floors, not ceilings? this is how it should be done
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:You can hit $10K in a federal race by donating to a state/district party committee as well as the candidate. You can't instruct that party committee how to spend the money, but a district committee's going to spend all of that money on their candidate's election. The state committee and its local committees have a 5k combined contribution limit for each candidate. Fried Chicken posted:political nonprofits that totally completely weren't coordinating with them. Innocent until proven guilty. quote:and getting re elected takes money which is why they sell access Incumbents generally don't have issues with raising money as they have the powers of incumbency. It's easier for them to raise money, so finance restrictions disproportionately benefit them. quote:a law is only pointless if the problem it is meant to address doesn't exist. When the problem does that means a new solution is required, not a banning of all solutions. And 19 isn't a solution, it's a power grant to legislatures. We don't know what they want except presumably to re-enforce 203, a bad law. quote:Buckley was the start of the roll back of all these laws going back to at least the Corrupt Practices Act. Read what I linked please. The courts narrowed earlier laws to make them almost meaningless, and several concurrences/dissents argued that the expansive interpretations the government wanted were meaningless. quote:the problem is we are at the point where we are nakedly selling votes for cash to the point of poisoning thousands of people (eg West Virginia). No, giving the authorization to find a solution to this is not worse than this. Except that if the West Virginia government is as corrupt as you claim, why would they use their new powers? If you think politicians promising to enact new finance laws would get elected, why wouldn't they get elected on an environmental platform now? Could it be that a West Virginia coal miner cares more about the only job that he's ever had or been qualified for more than distant environmental concerns? His vote is certainly not in the public's interest but voters almost never think that way. quote:It was also struck down by Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom PAC v Bennett on the argument that public financing of people who don't agree with you is restricting your speech. No part of that mentioned a millionaire's provision which is what got it struck down.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:we had the news break just earlier today about evidence if coordinating and your response is "nope not happening!" Which is being investigated. quote:they have an easier time raising money because they are selling access to power they currently have, not potential power in the future They have an easier time raising money because they have a machine already in place. They have franking privileges, they have name recognition, they have the inherent publicity of being in Congress, etc. quote:a power grant that restore things prior to 1971 Correct, it would make the parade of horribles I listed earlier come true. It would give Congress power that it's never really tried to use without being slapped down before. quote:and yet the corrupt practices law was struck down post CU rather than being one of those always narrowly interpreted laws like you are claiming The point is that those earlier laws barely did anything. The campaign finance party didn't start in earnest until 1971. It's not surprising they didn't get slapped down until then. quote:because you use a federal statute that ties states adopting the federal standards as a bare minimum and tie it to funding, same as we have done everything from highway laws to the Medicaid expansion Funding for what? quote:i can't decide if you pretending that the voters really do support the things the plutocrats want is adorable in its desperation or idiotic in its time wasting. Freedom Industries was fined and went bankrupt. Not sure what you think the giant miscarriage of justice was. quote:Because the law didn't have a millionaires provision, it had public subsidies rather than limits on private contributions. And Minnesota's public financing was struck down by the court of appeals in 1994. Yes it did. It provided unequal public financing in response to an opponent's excess spending.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:They declared bankruptcy so they could get out of any and all responsibility for it. What is wrong with you? That's not how bankruptcy works. All the assets are sold to the creditors (like their victims), new financing is found to continue the business, and the owners lose everything.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 21:17 |
|
|
no
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2014 04:39
|
|