If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   "The outside super PACs [are] so disgraceful that I'm ashamed of the Supreme Court. I predict there will be a major scandal associated with the decision on Citizens versus United." What sort of Maverick would say such a thing?   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 151
    More: Hero, supreme courts  
•       •       •

8823 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Jan 2012 at 3:50 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



151 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-01-25 05:43:52 PM  

Mikey1969: Leo Bloom's Freakout: Mikey1969: Who knows? Maybe the Maverick is back?

The Maverick:John MCain, Chris Gaines:Garth Brooks

Technically the same people but they are just attempts to manufacture a personality to let them escape the fact they they are only popular with rednecks. Unsuccessful and disingenuous in both instances.

McCain had the Maverick style long before anyone gave him a tag. It's why I used to like him. Of course once he threw in with Caribou Barbie, his entire style changed, and I lost all respect, but I had liked his willingness to buck the Party, not because he was necessarily right or wrong, but simply because he stood for what he believed in. This is more like what he was like before the summer of '08.

And I'm not really sure about your disingenuous tag, especially for the Chris Gaines thing. Brooks never pretended like he wasn't Garth Brooks under that, he just experimented with a new direction. A direction I didn't like any more than his country gig, but he never lied to anyone.


Ok, point conceded on Chris Gaines, I was relying on faulty memory (must need to drink more). I had thought he was trying to pretend they weren't the same person.

I am still not convinced on how much of a maverick he was prior to 2008, aside from a couple of Daily Show appearance where, admittedly he was quite likable. I do imagine the defeat by Baby Shrub broke something inside him. And I definitely think he was a better person prior to the '08 run than he allowed himself to become for it. To me that throws a suspicion on his previous record though, I don't think that one can change that fundamentally that quickly. I think he just revealed something he had the sense to better hide. Just my 2 cents though.
 
2012-01-25 05:44:16 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Donalds


That's what I was gonna guess.
 
2012-01-25 05:44:56 PM  

CapnBlues: Mikey1969: MrEricSir: Too bad McCain tied his balls behind his back in 2008. Running for office should never mean giving up the principles that made you likable in the first place.

Wow, I've been trying to say this, but nowhere near as perfectly. +1 for you!!

yeah, but if he had run as 2000 john mccain, he would have come across as too similar to obama.


Which turned out to be a detriment in 2008?
 
2012-01-25 05:46:26 PM  

James!: Cyberluddite: Wow, Subby, is this the first you've heard of McCain being one of the few Republicans who has in the past tended to be a supporter of campaign finance reform (which, more than anything else, is what caused him to be branded a "RINO" during his "Mavrik" days)? Here, let me give a fill-in the blank quiz on this--research it and see if it tells you anything:

1. The Supreme Court's controversial Citizens United case, which was largely responsible for giving rise to the concept of the "Super PAC," stuck down significant provisions of the Mc______-Feingold campaign finance reform law.

Bain!


"I've had it, McBain! That...that cannon of yours is against regulations! In this department, we go by the book!"
 
2012-01-25 05:47:31 PM  
I think it really gauges a person's political philosophy or their outlook when you ask them what is the worst Supreme Court decision in the last 10 years.

If they don't say Kelo v. New London, they're wrong.

If they say Gonzales v. Raich, they aren't that far off.

If they say Citizens United v. FEC, they're most likely a Democrat (and very wrong about this).
 
2012-01-25 05:50:48 PM  

mod3072: Just because I spend a few million helping a politician get elected, and then maybe ask for a few small favors down the road doesn't mean I'm buying influence.


"[F]ew million"? Lol. I like how you casually write that, as though giving away a couple million dollars is something you do in your sleep. Notice that "billion" or "trillion" was not used in your statement. Don't pretend like you actually contribute anything to the system. The Lowell Family Fund has shaped the last four-hundred years of Western history and you're trying to act like your piss in the wind is some sort of benevolence to conservative philosophy. What a joke.

It's good, clean, Jesus approved free-market capitalism.

Jesus didn't approve capitalism, he invented it. Obama Makes His Kids Eat Feces, Page 227, Paragraph 2: "And with all his might, all his energy, Jesus lay before the cross he would bear and spoke his most important words: 'I fear my disciples shall never live in a society where goods and services cannot be exchanged through the barter process for a form of currency. Should it ever exist, it will be called "capital ism".' Four hours later, the first traces of capitalism were discovered in a hovel once inhabited by our Lord and Savior.'" Ridiculous. Do you know anything about conservative history?

It's not like it's an unfair system - everyone gets the same vote and the same opportunities.

Lol, you think it's fair that someone with more money and influence is given the same vote as a hippie liberal? Idiot. How is that reasonable? Freedom of speech has convinced people that they are entitled to freedom of opinion, and that is wrong. If I can purchase a Senator, then he is obliged to make sure that the people he or she governs abide by the train of thought that I declare. If that Senator's constituents do not agree, then they should go to jail. The idea that they are entitled to a vote, or opportunities, or speech, that is garbage.

Whether you choose to speak with your vote, your voice, an email, written letter, or duffel bag full of cash is none of my business or anybody's else.

Lol. You use your own voice to speak for people? Pay someone else to do it. Oh, right. You are a millionaire. You are poor. Rofl.

If huge piles of $100 bills helps my congressman hear me better, then so be it.

Once again, you seem to believe that you are wealthy. Lol. You do not know the slightest thing about wealth. You have probably never even kissed a girl with a billion dollars. You are a fraud. I'm done talking to you, and should you ever post on this forum again, I expect that you will have read, consumed, and mastered the finest works of conservative philosophy: Beck, Coulter, Von Mises, Conservapedia, and Von Hauffen the Slayer. Do not respond to these posts unless you have done so. You claim to be a conservative, but you are destroying conservative philosophy by doing so. You are a subhuman. Begone!
 
2012-01-25 05:52:58 PM  

jigger: I think it really gauges a person's political philosophy or their outlook when you ask them what is the worst Supreme Court decision in the last 10 years.

If they don't say Kelo v. New London, they're wrong.

If they say Gonzales v. Raich, they aren't that far off.

If they say Citizens United v. FEC, they're most likely a Democrat (and very wrong about this).


So: Anyone who disagrees with you is wrong and stupid. Got it.

(I feel the same way, you wrong, stupid person)
 
2012-01-25 06:02:44 PM  

jigger: I think it really gauges a person's political philosophy or their outlook when you ask them what is the worst Supreme Court decision in the last 10 years.

If they don't say Kelo v. New London, they're wrong.

If they say Gonzales v. Raich, they aren't that far off.

If they say Citizens United v. FEC, they're most likely a Democrat (and very wrong about this).


What if they say: "There's --of course --in the great history of America there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are -- those issues, again, like Roe v Wade where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know -- going through the history of America, there would be others but...Well, I could think of -- of any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level -- maybe I would take issue with, but you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.''

What does THAT answer say about that person?
 
2012-01-25 06:07:56 PM  
I, too, wish that the government had the power to criminalize political speech if the concerned citizens who dare raise their voice against those in power happen to have organized their affairs in the corporate form. Then we can have a functioning democracy again!!!111
 
2012-01-25 06:11:13 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: We need a pool for predicting the nature of the scandal.

Mob money?

China money?

Russia money?

Narco money?

PAC money used for bribing election officials?


All of the above?

Actually, how about Fark money? Not actually money from Fark, but money from the above sources being controlled by a superPAC set up by farkers. I already have an idea of how to make it go down. Start by creating two superPACs, the first one is openly for candidate A and gathers the most money from various unsavory sources. The second one is openly for candidate B and collects some donations from supporters and a LOT of double-secret not-reported-because-they-don't-have-to donations from superPAC A. SuperPAC B then runs HORRIBLE ads that create giant public backlash, make candidate B look terrible, and are essentially as bad as you can get while staying legal. Then, once candidate B goes down in flames because of his non-associated association with superPAC B and Candidate A takes the election, release EVERYTHING to the media showing candidate A is bought and sold by unsavory sources and how a superPAC brought down a candidate through lies and a "false-flag op" and how terrible citizen's united is followed by a trollface.
 
2012-01-25 06:11:19 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Nope. No "simple act of Congress" can bypass a SCOTUS ruling. Sometimes they rewrite legislation and insert some weasel words, hoping that it will end up before SCOTUS and sneak through. They can most certainly NOT just give have a simple vote and give SCOTUS the finger.


Hairsplitting.

If a piece of legislation is ruled unconstitutional for one reason or another, Congress can, and has, repeatedly achieved the same goals by correcting the Constitutional deficiency and achieve the same ends as the original legislation. Happens all the time. Distinction without a difference.

In the case of Citizen's United, they'd simply have to come up with another method of campaign financing. It wouldn't be the first time it's been done, you know.
 
2012-01-25 06:13:47 PM  

jigger: I think it really gauges a person's political philosophy or their outlook when you ask them what is the worst Supreme Court decision in the last 10 years.


Depends on what you mean by "worst".

Citizens United certainly has the potential to be a much bigger threat to our democracy than Kelo.

Personally, I think that Finders v. Weepers is the biggest travesty of justice.
 
2012-01-25 06:13:52 PM  
And I apologize for the awful first sentence in the first paragraph of my previous post. It's quitting time, and I'm rushing to leave the office, but even so, I should have proofed it better than that.
 
2012-01-25 06:13:52 PM  

jigger: I think it really gauges a person's political philosophy or their outlook when you ask them what is the worst Supreme Court decision in the last 10 years.

If they don't say Kelo v. New London, they're wrong.

If they say Gonzales v. Raich, they aren't that far off.

If they say Citizens United v. FEC, they're most likely a Democrat (and very wrong about this).


I'm not a Dem, I'm an independent, and I consider it to be the worst that's happened in my lifetime. Of course, I don't like my politicians to belegally bought and sold, so that makes me different, I gues.
 
2012-01-25 06:14:13 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Time to amend the Constitution.


Pity it'll never happen.

I mean: the Congress can't make a lunch order without having a filibuster: you think any of them will have the
foresight to make an amendment.
 
2012-01-25 06:15:41 PM  

Forced Perspective: I, too, wish that the government had the power to criminalize political speech if the concerned citizens who dare raise their voice against those in power happen to have organized their affairs in the corporate form. Then we can have a functioning democracy again!!!111


Since when does Congress not have the right to regulate commerce? Oh, right, since the SC redefined commerce as speech.
 
2012-01-25 06:18:30 PM  
mrjared

grotto_man: Cyberluddite

mrjared: The decision that largely struck down his own piece of legislation is not farking Citizens versus United.

Wow, I hadn't even noticed that part of the quote. Grandpa appears to be losing his marbles even faster than I thought.

Racism is no longer acceptable, so resort to ageism - gotta be able to look down on some group of people based on characteristics they don't control!

Actually, both of you are the ones sans marbles - "Grandpa" didn't make that claim, the article's author did. And according to this, it did strike down major parts of McCain-Feingold, in addition to FEC vs Wisonsin Right to Life and Davis vs FEC.

Listen, you must have missed the part where I largely agree with McCain on this issue. Where my concern lies is in the fact that man can't properly identify the court decision that he's farking talking about. I would be upset with my community college students for misidentifying this important court case, but a farking US Senator? One who is directly involved in the issue? Come the fark on. My ONLY point is that we should be concerned about how addled we allow US Senators to become.


You either didn't read what I actually wrote, or completely misunderstood it. I never said you disagreed with McCain. If you read the article, the author made the claim about Citizen's United, not McCain. And in fact, the author was basically correct - the decision did overturn a large part of McCain-Feingold, parts that the earlier decisions didn't.

Furthermore, there's the incongruity of McCain's supposed inability to know the facts about his own law, which you equate with your own students, and your actually inability or refusal to read with comprehension.
 
2012-01-25 06:19:29 PM  

Deucednuisance: Hairsplitting.


wat?

Deucednuisance: In the case of Citizen's United, they'd simply have to come up with another method of campaign financing.


It doesn't matter what individual politicians do, the SC has set the parameters of what CAN be done - and if you what to win, you'd better use all possible weapons, because if you don't, your opponent will, and many corporatepersons will will send their unlimited, unregulated funds to them instead. Good luck!!

How is a tiny minority having vastly more influence than the overwhelming majority even remotely democratic?

they'd simply have to come up with another method of campaign financing

What a painfully stupid thing to say.
 
2012-01-25 06:23:10 PM  

jigger: I think it really gauges a person's political philosophy or their outlook when you ask them what is the worst Supreme Court decision in the last 10 years.

If they don't say Kelo v. New London, they're wrong.

If they say Gonzales v. Raich, they aren't that far off.

If they say Citizens United v. FEC, they're most likely a Democrat (and very wrong about this).


Well, it's been a little more than 10 years, but it will be a very long time until Bush v. Gore is topped in the list of "bad Supreme Court decisions". And I'm not even referring to the actual result, but the sheer mess of the ruling. The blatant partisanship (on both sides), the statement that it was to never be cited as precedent for future cases, and the sheer number of opinions attached to the case.
 
2012-01-25 06:26:42 PM  
Oh, are you back now, Mr. McCain?
 
2012-01-25 06:27:52 PM  

Mike_LowELL: Once again, you seem to believe that you are wealthy. Lol. You do not know the slightest thing about wealth. You have probably never even kissed a girl with a billion dollars. You are a fraud. I'm done talking to you, and should you ever post on this forum again, I expect that you will have read, consumed, and mastered the finest works of conservative philosophy: Beck, Coulter, Von Mises, Conservapedia, and Von Hauffen the Slayer. Do not respond to these posts unless you have done so. You claim to be a conservative, but you are destroying conservative philosophy by doing so. You are a subhuman. Begone!


My apologies. I will walk away from this thread with my head held low in shame. In my own defense though, I would be rich if the government didn't steal all of my hard earned money through their ridiculous capital gains tax and give it to poor black people for having children out of wedlock.
 
2012-01-25 06:28:17 PM  
So its reasonable shiat like this that makes John McCain a "RINO?"
 
2012-01-25 06:30:37 PM  
You are waiting for a scandal to bubble up? It's already there, right in TFA:

"I note with some interest that a casino owner has given $5 million and his wife has now given $5 million, so you have one family throwing in $10 million into a primary race. I don't think that's what our Founding Fathers had in mind," McCain said.

Free speech and all of that but if you believe that $10 million free spech dollars will not have a significan timpact on the decision making process of any politician than there is something wrong with you. No one, no one gives that kind of money and doesn't expect soemthing significant in return adn I don't mean 'just winning' in return. No one, no one accepts this kind of money, not even multi-free spech millionaire Roney and is not well aware that he will have to return the favor.
 
2012-01-25 06:37:12 PM  
images.wikia.com
 
2012-01-25 06:40:40 PM  

Bill_Wick's_Friend: What if they say: "There's --of course --in the great history of America there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are -- those issues, again, like Roe v Wade where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know -- going through the history of America, there would be others but...Well, I could think of -- of any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level -- maybe I would take issue with, but you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.''

What does THAT answer say about that person?


Well, Roe v. Wade was more than 10 years ago, but I'd say that person is pro-life and wrong about Roe v. Wade. Ron Paul is wrong about abortion.
 
2012-01-25 06:42:59 PM  

Geotpf: Well, it's been a little more than 10 years, but it will be a very long time until Bush v. Gore is topped in the list of "bad Supreme Court decisions". And I'm not even referring to the actual result, but the sheer mess of the ruling. The blatant partisanship (on both sides), the statement that it was to never be cited as precedent for future cases, and the sheer number of opinions attached to the case.


Yes, this one is up there for SCOTUS stupidity.

And I love how people think that John McCain once had genuine integrity or was once genuinely reasonable.
 
2012-01-25 06:45:27 PM  

jigger: Well, Roe v. Wade was more than 10 years ago, but I'd say that person is pro-life and wrong about Roe v. Wade. Ron Paul is wrong about abortion.


I'm gonna guess that, given your derision for Democrats, you voted for the person who said that moronic meaningless word-salad.

I am sorry you didn't recognize the quote.
 
2012-01-25 06:48:55 PM  
In the meantime we're hearing yet another story about how Obama may raise as much as a billion dollars for his reelection campaign.

But that all comes from "small" donations. Trust us.

Taking away the fund raising advantage afforded to Democrats by unions... The whining will never stop.
 
2012-01-25 06:56:10 PM  

mod3072: these posts unless you have done so. You claim to be a conservative, but you are destroying conservative philosophy by doing so. You are a subhuman. Begone!

My apologies. I will walk away from this thread with my head held low in shame. In my own defense though, I would be rich if the government didn't steal all of my hard earned money through their ridiculous capital gains tax and give it to poor black people for having children out of wedlock.


Your apology is accepted on specific conditions, much like the government thinks they can take our hard-earned money on the conditions that "everyone is supposed to help each other out". Rofl. Dumbest thing I've ever heard of. I am willing to believe that you or any person can attempt to learn conservative philosophy. The question is whether or not you can develop the reading and writing skills required to understand and master their works. The current institutions for learning these things are currently controlled by the government, and with that control, comes the liberal message. For that reason, I am currently inventing a language that will allow conservatives greater control of our thoughts than our current, European-derived dialects will allow. When it is done, I will post it on my 40freemegs web page. If you are interested in learning how to defeat liberals, then you must learn from the masters.
 
2012-01-25 07:00:04 PM  

Cyberluddite: Wow, Subby, is this the first you've heard of McCain being one of the few Republicans who has in the past tended to be a supporter of campaign finance reform (which, more than anything else, is what caused him to be branded a "RINO" during his "Mavrik" days)? Here, let me give a fill-in the blank quiz on this--research it and see if it tells you anything:

1. The Supreme Court's controversial Citizens United case, which was largely responsible for giving rise to the concept of the "Super PAC," stuck down significant provisions of the Mc______-Feingold campaign finance reform law.


images.forbes.com
?

No wonder the reform failed!
 
2012-01-25 07:02:43 PM  
You sold your soul and gave us Sarah Palin.

Screw you John McCain. I would have actually voted for this assclown in 2000. Of course, he would have done better than the assclown we got instead.

www.demotivationalposters.org
 
2012-01-25 07:04:23 PM  

grotto_man: You either didn't read what I actually wrote, or completely misunderstood it. I never said you disagreed with McCain. If you read the article, the author made the claim about Citizen's United, not McCain. And in fact, the author was basically correct - the decision did overturn a large part of McCain-Feingold, parts that the earlier decisions didn't.


I think we got off-track here, and aren't listening to and/or understanding each other. The point mrjared was making, which I was commenting on, relates to the following quote from McCain (not the author's commentary) found in the article:

McCain went further. "I predict to you there will be a major scandal associated with the Supreme Court decision on Citizens versus United. There is too much money washing around," he said.

The point was that McCain, unlike even 90% of Fark, was not able to correctly name what is perhaps the most significant Supreme Court case of the current millenium, even though, as you correctly point out, that case gutted his own signature piece of legislation, McCain-Feingold. That case is not called "Citizens versus United," as McCain called it--it's Citizens United (v. Federal Election Commission). One would think that he, of all people, would be familiar with the name, and the fact that he can't properly state is is curious.

And that's the only point that was being made. Are we clear now?
 
2012-01-25 07:05:10 PM  

Bill_Wick's_Friend: jigger: Well, Roe v. Wade was more than 10 years ago, but I'd say that person is pro-life and wrong about Roe v. Wade. Ron Paul is wrong about abortion.

I'm gonna guess that, given your derision for Democrats, you voted for the person who said that moronic meaningless word-salad.

I am sorry you didn't recognize the quote.


DOH! Sorry. I didn't realize it was Sarah Palin.

No no no. I didn't vote for McCain/Palin. Didn't vote at all in that election. No point. DC was 93% for Obama.

And I didn't say anything disparaging about Democrats. I just said that they're more likely to be against the correct ruling in Citizens United and are wrong about that.
 
2012-01-25 07:06:09 PM  
www.hollywoodmemorabilia.com
 
2012-01-25 07:13:48 PM  

Cyberluddite: Wow, Subby, is this the first you've heard of McCain being one of the few Republicans who has in the past tended to be a supporter of campaign finance reform (which, more than anything else, is what caused him to be branded a "RINO" during his "Mavrik" days)? Here, let me give a fill-in the blank quiz on this--research it and see if it tells you anything:

1. The Supreme Court's controversial Citizens United case, which was largely responsible for giving rise to the concept of the "Super PAC," stuck down significant provisions of the Mc______-Feingold campaign finance reform law.


Donald had a farm ee-ai-ee-ai-oh and on his farm he had a
 
2012-01-25 07:13:56 PM  

jigger:
And I love how people think that John McCain once had genuine integrity or was once genuinely reasonable.


I think you're overstating, if not outright straw-manning, our case here.

Was McCain some super-human paragon of legislative and personal integrity? No. No, he was not.

Was McCain a fairly reasonable man that stuck to a consistent set of principles and did his job as a Senator effectively and largely with the actual public interest in mind? Yes, he was.

//There's not a politician in history that wasn't at least something of a mixed blessing. McCain wasn't a saint, but he was a good legislator in the same way that, say, the late Sen. Kennedy was a good legislator. Flawed, yes, but largely a genuine public servant more than a two-faced plutocrat.
 
2012-01-25 07:37:11 PM  

jigger: DOH! Sorry. I didn't realize it was Sarah Palin.

No no no. I didn't vote for McCain/Palin


Curses! A perfect set-up for a comedy pratfall and you gingerly side-step it with your damned reality.
 
2012-01-25 07:41:20 PM  
If the Freakonomics guys are to be believed, more money rarely wins elections by itself.

Money rolling into a campaign is a side effect of the campaign's popularity, rather than vice-versa. Thus, a small handful of very wealthy donors pouring money into a Super PAC isn't as influential as you think -- it's really the number of donations that matter, because that indicates a whole lot of people like the campaign.

Case in point: Self-financed campaigns very frequently lose, despite having large amounts of cash. They don't gain traction with the voters, and they don't get money from outside sources. The popularity precedes the cash.
 
2012-01-25 07:44:07 PM  

elchip: If the Freakonomics guys are to be believed, more money rarely wins elections by itself.

Money rolling into a campaign is a side effect of the campaign's popularity, rather than vice-versa. Thus, a small handful of very wealthy donors pouring money into a Super PAC isn't as influential as you think -- it's really the number of donations that matter, because that indicates a whole lot of people like the campaign.

Case in point: Self-financed campaigns very frequently lose, despite having large amounts of cash. They don't gain traction with the voters, and they don't get money from outside sources. The popularity precedes the cash.


More money doesn't necessarily win elections, but it does have a great impact on the type of policies politicians endorse or propose since more often than not, it's based on what their donors want them to do and if they vote contrary to what the donors want them to, the money will go away.
 
2012-01-25 07:54:24 PM  

Mike_LowELL: When it is done, I will post it on my 40freemegs web page


+1
 
2012-01-25 07:57:29 PM  

Leo Bloom's Freakout: CapnBlues: Mikey1969: MrEricSir: Too bad McCain tied his balls behind his back in 2008. Running for office should never mean giving up the principles that made you likable in the first place.

Wow, I've been trying to say this, but nowhere near as perfectly. +1 for you!!

yeah, but if he had run as 2000 john mccain, he would have come across as too similar to obama.

Which turned out to be a detriment in 2008?


weird, huh?
 
2012-01-25 08:07:41 PM  
Did someone say Pancakes?
 
2012-01-25 08:12:12 PM  
holy farking shiat, I ACTUALLY agree with something John McCain says...did somebody finally put him on the right meds? I agree, some kind of bribery scandal is going to eventually come from the citizen's united ruling...
 
2012-01-25 09:48:05 PM  
Hey, I'm probably retarded, so don't worry too much about this question, but if you create a super-pac, and then drop out of the race without spending all your money on advertising, who keeps the rest of the money?

Do all the remaining donations get sent back to the folks that wanted you to win the nomination? Does the independent not allowed to co-ordinate super pac keep the money? Does it go back to the candidate?

What happens with all the left over money?
 
2012-01-25 10:09:10 PM  

epoc_tnac: What happens with all the left over money?


GREETINGS TO YOU.

THIS LETTER MAY COME AS A SURPRISE BUT I WAS GIVEN YOUR NAME AS A TRUSTWORTHY GENTLEMAN WHO CAN ASSIST US IN A MOST SERIOUES FINANNCIAL TRANSFER. MY CLIENT IS A SUPERPAC FUND ADMINISTRATOR WITH US$20,000,000 (UNITED STATES DOLLARES) AND HE REQUIRES A RELIABLE AND DISCRETIONED PARTNER IN YOUR STATE. OF COURSE WE CAN COMPENSATE YOU FOR THIS ENDEAVOUR AND WILL GRANT TO YOU A 25% SHARE IN THIS FINANCIAL OVERAGE ONCE WE HAVE CONFIRMED THAT THE SUPERPAC FUNDS HAVE BEEN TRANSFERED TO OUR NEUTRAL ACCOUNTS IN LAGOS.

PLEASE SEND US YOUR FULL NAME, BIRTHDATE, SCAN OF PASSPORT, SOSICAL SECURITY NUMBER, AND THE BANK ACCOUNT INFORMATION INTO WHICH YOU WOULD LIKE THE MONEY TO BE DEPOSITED.
 
2012-01-25 10:54:55 PM  

CaspianXth: Part of McCain-Feingold was struck down by the Citizens United ruling. McCain criticizes the ruling. Am I supposed to be surprised by this?


Only inasmuch as it took him two years to do it...
 
2012-01-25 11:20:45 PM  

Bill_Wick's_Friend: epoc_tnac: What happens with all the left over money?

GREETINGS TO YOU.

THIS LETTER MAY COME AS A SURPRISE BUT I WAS GIVEN YOUR NAME AS A TRUSTWORTHY GENTLEMAN WHO CAN ASSIST US IN A MOST SERIOUES FINANNCIAL TRANSFER. MY CLIENT IS A SUPERPAC FUND ADMINISTRATOR WITH US$20,000,000 (UNITED STATES DOLLARES) AND HE REQUIRES A RELIABLE AND DISCRETIONED PARTNER IN YOUR STATE. OF COURSE WE CAN COMPENSATE YOU FOR THIS ENDEAVOUR AND WILL GRANT TO YOU A 25% SHARE IN THIS FINANCIAL OVERAGE ONCE WE HAVE CONFIRMED THAT THE SUPERPAC FUNDS HAVE BEEN TRANSFERED TO OUR NEUTRAL ACCOUNTS IN LAGOS.

PLEASE SEND US YOUR FULL NAME, BIRTHDATE, SCAN OF PASSPORT, SOSICAL SECURITY NUMBER, AND THE BANK ACCOUNT INFORMATION INTO WHICH YOU WOULD LIKE THE MONEY TO BE DEPOSITED.


Nice.

In seriousness, I think the money works the same way regular campaign money works, the PAC-runner is certainly able to loot the company and run, but s/he can be sued under the same rules you sue someone for looting a charity and more importantly. Additionally, while stealing and running works once, it doesn't work twice, and since chances are you were already a big player in the lobbying/campaigning/PR world BEFORE you started running a superPAC (otherwise no one would donate large sums to you in the first place) you probably just take any leftover money, rebrand yourself the (insert next election campaign) superPAC and keep going, continuing to pay yourself a nice comfy (and steady) paycheck as the superPAC...whatever (chairman? CEO? Big Chief Dicksucker?)

Lyndon Larouche made a living doing that years before superPACs and Citizen's United. Still does, in fact, and he doesn't even get much from the real power-players (afaik).
 
2012-01-25 11:26:49 PM  

jigger: I think it really gauges a person's political philosophy or their outlook when you ask them what is the worst Supreme Court decision in the last 10 years.

If they don't say Kelo v. New London, they're wrong.

If they say Gonzales v. Raich, they aren't that far off.

If they say Citizens United v. FEC, they're most likely a Democrat (and very wrong about this).


Kelo and Gonzales are shockingly, incredibly bad decisions. But let's look at this in terms of outcomes: We haven't seen a catastrophic wave of eminent domain seizures being used to hand land over to developers, and while it will make things interesting as the debate over Prohibition 2.0 heats up, Gonzales didn't actually change things for anyone that much (pot was illegal and remains illegal).

C.U. opened the door to unlimited, anonymous corporate money in campaigns and we're seeing what happens right now: Just look at the attack ads flying back and forth between Republican primaries. Or the millions of anonymous $ being sent to Darth Walker in Wisconsin. We're about to witness what happens when no one in congress dares cross any corporation ever again for fear of being destroyed by nonstop anonymous attack ads.

Ideologically/theoretically, you can argue that Kelo or Gonzales are more offensive, but in terms of immediate negative impact C.U. takes the take.

/Would say it's unfair to have to choose only 1 if asked... Kelo, CU, and several involving illegal surveillance are all in the 'zomgwtf' category
 
2012-01-26 01:50:38 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: Geotpf: If your solution to a problem is amending the constitution, you don't actually have a solution to said problem.

The only way around a SCOTUS decision is an amendment

Not only do we have A solution, we have the ONLY solution.


I guess we never should have passed the first 27 amendments...
 
2012-01-26 07:26:03 AM  

Cyberluddite: Wow, Subby, is this the first you've heard of McCain being one of the few Republicans who has in the past tended to be a supporter of campaign finance reform (which, more than anything else, is what caused him to be branded a "RINO" during his "Mavrik" days)? Here, let me give a fill-in the blank quiz on this--research it and see if it tells you anything:

1. The Supreme Court's controversial Citizens United case, which was largely responsible for giving rise to the concept of the "Super PAC," stuck down significant provisions of the Mc______-Feingold campaign finance reform law.


brainwagon.org

Whee. Fun schtick.

Campaign finance reform is a difficult topic in a post CU decision world. Even if, by some miracle, you found the political will to enact strict public financing of elections you would still have the legal bribery of lobbying, the ridiculous speakers fees thing and the revolving door between DC and K street and the Media to contend with.
 
Displayed 50 of 151 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report